Debian Bug report logs - #476457
Improve dpatch(1) example of modifying debian/rules

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@ubuntu.com>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Improve dpatch(1) example of modifying debian/rules

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:17:27 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: dpatch
Version: 2.0.29
Severity: minor
Tags: patch

Hello,

I've been told dpatch(1) has an example of how to change debian/rules. I learnt
it from my sponsor, and I've noticed it's more hackish than necessary.

This patch adds another option to the example using
/usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make. I've added it before the other example as I think
people should use that one so that future improvements/fixes to the
patch/unpatch targets in dpatch.make are automatically taken by the packages
using it. Feel free to disagree with me and put it as a second example if you want.

Best,
Emilio

[dpatch_manpage_add_example.patch (text/x-patch, inline)]

--- dpatch.1	2008-04-16 20:47:54.000000000 +0200
+++ dpatch.1.new2	2008-04-16 20:58:49.000000000 +0200
@@ -363,6 +363,26 @@ After dpatchifying, this would look like
 .RS
 .sp
 .nf
+include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make
+config.status: patch configure
+        ./configure \-\-prefix=/usr \-\-mandir=/usr/share
+build: config.status
+        ${MAKE}
+clean: unpatch
+        $(testdir)
+        $(testroot)
+        ${MAKE} distclean
+        rm \-rf debian/imaginary\-package debian/files debian/substvars
+
+.fi
+.sp
+.RE
+
+Another option would be:
+
+.RS
+.sp
+.nf
 config.status: patch configure
 	./configure \-\-prefix=/usr \-\-mandir=/usr/share
 build: config.status

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #10 received at 476457@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@ubuntu.com>, 476457@bugs.debian.org

Cc: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [dpatch-maintainers] Bug#476457: Improve dpatch(1) example of modifying debian/rules

Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 16:59:35 +0900

Hi,

> I've been told dpatch(1) has an example of how to change debian/rules. I learnt
> it from my sponsor, and I've noticed it's more hackish than necessary.
> 
> This patch adds another option to the example using
> /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make. I've added it before the other example as I think
> people should use that one so that future improvements/fixes to the
> patch/unpatch targets in dpatch.make are automatically taken by the packages
> using it. Feel free to disagree with me and put it as a second example if you want.


The original maintainers of dpatch decided against using make and
using shell script for dpatch interface. I can only guess their
reasonings but there are a few caveats with the make snippets:

1. it's harder to try from command-line.

2. It's harder to get those .PHONY targets invoked the right number of
times. 


But I agree having them implemented in makefiles feel much simpler.


regards,
	junichi
-- 
dancer@{debian.org,netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project

Message #15 received at 476457@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@ubuntu.com>

To: Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>

Cc: 476457@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [dpatch-maintainers] Bug#476457: Improve dpatch(1) example of modifying debian/rules

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:43:20 +0100

Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> But I agree having them implemented in makefiles feel much simpler.

And dpatch.make(7) already has an example a bit similar to the one I'm proposing.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #20 received at 476457-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gergely Nagy <algernon@madhouse-project.org>

To: 476457-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Improve dpatch(1) example of modifying debian/rules

Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:53:25 +0200

As mentioned already in the bug report, dpatch.make(7) (which is
referenced by dpatch(1)) already shows an example very similar to the
one proposed.

The dpatch(1) manual page is meant to document the dpatch command
itself, and only that. That's the reason dpatch.make(7) even exists.

Since an example is already provided, at a place where the original
author and (soon to be) current maintainer intended it to be, I'm
closing this bug report.

-- 
|8]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.