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
