Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/02/21:25:02
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 01:15:54PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 13:03, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Couldn't the patch remove itself?
>
>Not if you create the patch via diff!
Why? The patch could patch itself into a zero length file and the file
could be removed via "patch -E".
>> One problem, of course, is that patch can't reliably remove a file. It
>> can remove files that become empty but, AFAIK, it can't remove directories
>> that are made obsolete by the patch.
>
>So maybe we should provide unpatched directories, and a patch to make it
>cygwin-ready?
That's the way a lot packages do it. I wouldn't mind that at all, if I
thought that our audience could handle it.
>> How does debian handle this? Is it similar to the method that you
>> outlined?
>
>Funnily enough, when you download the source via apt you get 3 files and
>a dir:
>
>package-version.orig.tar.gz
>package-version-suffix.diff.gz
>package-version-suffix.dsc
>
>package-version is the vendor source tree unaltered. (and has no suffix)
>the diff.gz makes the vendor tree debian package creation tools ready
>the .dsc file is a PGP signed control file that includes all the
>metadata - maintainer, architecture, build-dependencies, source and diff
>file crc's etc. (The signing is to guarantee the file crc's).
>
>And there is a tool that will download those three files via apt-get ,
>and then extract, patch and build a package for one, in one command.
>Quite nice really.
Yes, it is. Lets do that! If we have a tool that will manage this, I
think this is a win.
cgf
- Raw text -