On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 21:29:21 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Very well.  I will have a look at implementing such hack, then.

How about this:

commit b5c4390b23f3df0bc92166cb24f9ea120992d628
Author: Reinhard Tartler <siret...@tauware.de>
Date:   Sun Apr 4 22:33:51 2010 +0200

    unpatch quilt ptaches on clean

diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index bf5eb38..5886dcb 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 -include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/upstream-tarball.mk
 include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/utils.mk
 include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk
+include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk
 include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk
 # suppress optional build-dependencies
@@ -37,7 +38,7 @@ common-configure-impl:: debian/stamp-waf-configure
        waf configure --prefix=/usr $(MIXED_FLAGS) --firewire --alsa --classic 
        touch $@
+clean:: unpatch
        rm -f debian/stamp-waf-configure

While we are at it, I'd suggest this change as well for Format 3.0
packages in general:

commit 2d9e25b770cd0ed608a9bb47e40d38829902e6f4
Author: Reinhard Tartler <siret...@tauware.de>
Date:   Sun Apr 4 22:32:26 2010 +0200

    use debian/patches/debian-changes as automatic patch

diff --git a/debian/source/options b/debian/source/options
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9549602
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/source/options
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+# use debian/patches/debian-changes as automatic patch

> Yeah, true. That one piece is Perl.  And I really should merge that
> script into licensecheck itself.  Just haven't taken the time and social
> endurance yet to figure out how that package is maintained, whom to
> discuss with if ok that I start hack on it to improve it, and how many
> different opinions I need to challenge and argue against regarding Perl
> coding style, intend of that tool etc. etc. etc.

Ok, I think we agree here. Let's start with a wishlist bug against
devscripts for licensecheck2dep5. Do you want to file or shall I?

> Just see how much time we've spent arguing about packaging style here.
> No, I am not whining, just stating the fact that it takes time and
> effort to get involved in yet another development team.

Oh, I don't think this time is wasted, as long as we don't restart it
over and over again.

However, we mustn't forget to add our conclusions to

> So that one hack is Perl but irrelevant for dkpg-dev.  And other parts
> are not Perl so irrelevant for dpkg-dev too.  As I see it.

As for the repackaging tarball functionality, from the first glance I
also think it could probably live in devscripts as well; conversion to
shell seems really straight forward.

> Please keep challenge me on that, though :-)

At your command :-)

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to