[Pkg-xen-devel] [PATCH 0/9] Package the ocaml libraries

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 11:43 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:24:58AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 10:59 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > This patches are not enough. I pulled them from xen-unstable and got:
> > > | The next patch would delete the file tools/ocaml/libs/xl/xl.mli.in,
> > > | which does not exist!  Applying it anyway.
> > > | patching file tools/ocaml/libs/xl/xl.mli.in
> > > | Hunk #1 FAILED at 1.
> > > | 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file tools/ocaml/libs/xl/xl.mli.in
> > 
> > A bunch of other stuff changed in the ocaml stuff between 4.1 and the
> > current unstable version (e.g. we now autogenerate the xl bindings,
> > which is where xl.mli.in comes from), it's stuff which I don't think is
> > suitable for backport either upstream or to these packages.
> > 
> > I suspect that when Jon says "import" he actually means "apply the moral
> > equivalent of".
> 
> Well. Then the patches are too large. They must not rename files,
> because diff can't handle this properly.
> 
> Even the upstream repository misses the informations about the renames.

Yes, that's something of a shame.

Unfortunately I think the filename in ml is somewhat tied into the
module structure, so it cannot be changed without renaming the file.

What do you recommend?

If we were to regenerate the diff in the "git" style, so it represents
the renames usefully would dpkg-source 3.0 (quilt) cope?

We could modify the files in place and mv or ln to the correct name in
debian/rules but that seems a bit gross.

Ian.
-- 
Ian Campbell
Current Noise: Inanimus Theory - Braveheart

Women are like elephants to me: I like to look at them, but I wouldn't
want to own one.
		-- W. C. Fields