On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:29:36PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > I've therefore applied the patch to Report.pm in the Debian Perl
> > Group's svn repository and reported it at rt.cpan.org:
> > http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=18992
> I suppose you didn't notice that libpdf-report-perl is currently using
> dpatch for managing the patches.
You're right; puh - how embarrassing!
> While I'm aware that there are different opinions on whether dpatch
> (and other such patch systems) are a good idea, I suppose everybody can
> agree that mixing dpatch and 'straightforward' .diff.gz patching gives
> the worst of the both worlds.
Of course.
> Please consider making this patch into a dpatch as well or removing
> the dpatch framework.
I reverted Report.pm and added the patch as
debian/patches/50addimgscaled.dpatch
I'd be thankful if you or someone else could check it again, I have
not much experience with dpatch up to now.
> I wonder if we (as in pkg-perl-maintainers) should have a policy about
> patch systems?
I guess a common approach (a.k.a. policy) would be a good idea and
...
> If people think that the SVN history keeps patches
> separate enough, that's of course fine by me. The only situation where
> that doesn't apply is when the patches are older than the first import
> to our SVN repository.
... dpatch seems basically cleaner because it separates the patches
from the original source.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/
`. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/
`- NP: Tom Waits: Hoist That Rag
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
|
| 
