Re: Bug#250202: Standardizing make target for 'patch' and 'upstream-source'

On Friday 01 April 2005 02:12, Scott James Remnant wrote: > I was initially thinking along these lines myself > , however I'm now starting to lean > towards not allowing arbitrary shell to just open up a source package; > it doesn't "feel" safe enough. > > I als

Re: Bug#250202: Standardizing make target for 'patch' and 'upstream-source'

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 01:12:53AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 11:37 +0200, David Schmitt wrote: > > > To prepare the sourcecode for inspection and/or minor modifications an > > additional argument for debian/rules would fit well into the current model. > > > > Cal

Re: Bug#250202: Standardizing make target for 'patch' and 'upstream-source'

[Cc:s trimmed. Probably should go to -dpkg] On Friday 01 April 2005 02:12, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 11:37 +0200, David Schmitt wrote: > > To prepare the sourcecode for inspection and/or minor modifications an > > additional argument for debian/rules would fit well into th

Re: Bug#250202: Standardizing make target for 'patch' and 'upstream-source'

Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's also the issue of how do you clean or put a source package back > together, when it's got the patches all applied -- how do you know which > patch any modifications should go into? Well, the easiest way would be to unpack all patches into d

Re: Bug#250202: Standardizing make target for 'patch' and 'upstream-source'

On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 11:37 +0200, David Schmitt wrote: > To prepare the sourcecode for inspection and/or minor modifications an > additional argument for debian/rules would fit well into the current model. > > Calling "debian/rules prepare" should leave the tree in a state where the > source