[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: AMD64 package help needed



On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 17:45, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 19:08, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > I too think that the "proper" way to deal with problems with auto*tools is
> > to patch.  However, I think it's impractical.  Not from size of the src.rpm,
> > but from size of the patch.  It is a nightmare to properly QA the tangled
> > patch of regenerated Makefiles, Makefile.ins, configure, et al.
>
> Working around this topic is simple - Split the diff into two: One
> containing the patches to the sources (configure.acs, Makefile.ams) and
> one patch containing the generated files.
> 
Huh?  I regularly do that.  The sources patch remains nice and small. 
But the generated files patch is still huge.  Here's an example from my
packaging of Gnotime:

lines    size      name
-----    1218556   gnotime-2.2.1.tar.gz
20       678       gnotime-desktop.patch
190      5169      gnotime-gtkhtml3-qof.patch -- Build source changes 
197      6089      gnotime-idle.patch
210      5768      gnotime-qof-include.patch
157      6263      gnotime.spec
56819    1950102   gnotime-postautogen-handedit.patch -- If I was
packaging via the patch method, I'd probably hand-edit it to exclude
things I didn't deem necessary.
  If I was sloppy:

121421   4191619   gnotime-postautogen.patch -- Raw regenerated build
files

If I was QA'ing this package, I'd be able to check out the base patches
and spec relatively easily but the postautogen patch would be quite a
chore.

-Toshio
-- 
_______S________U________B________L________I________M________E_______
  t  o  s  h  i  o  +  t  i  k  i  -  l  o  u  n  g  e  .  c  o  m
                                                          GA->ME 1999

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]