[ubuntu-dev] Bug#645958: Patch is wrong (sorry)

[Declercq Laurent]

Le 20/10/2011 14:52, Stefano Rivera a écrit :
> Hi Laurent (2011.10.20_08:18:34_+0200)
>
> BTW, you don't have to use reportbug to reply to this bug, you can just
> reply to the e-mail. As long as a copy goes to 645958 at bugs.debian.org,
> it will be added to the bug page.
>    

Sure, It's what I've tried first but it seem that  my smtp host was 
rejected for unknown reason, and that explains why I've used reportbug. 
I'm sorry for that.

>    
>> I've forgot that we also can define a customized sources.list by using
>> the TEMPLATE_SOURCES variable via the ~/.mk- (btw: not documented in
>> the man).
>>      
> Please feel free to provide patches for the manpages too :)
>    

Ok, in this case, I'll fetch the debian package (source) to work on the 
man page..

>    
>> for now, we can setup a customized sources.list in many ways:
>>          - via the ~/.mk-sbuild.rc file by using the TEMPLATE_SOURCES variable
>>          - via the ~/.mk-sbuild.sources
>>      
> (which is just a default value for TEMPLATE_SOURCES)
>
>    
>>          - via a specific distro based file, such as ~/.mk-sbuild.sources.debian
>>      
> Not yet, but with your patch, yes.
>    

Sure :p
>    
>> My question here is: In which order we must treat these possibilities when
>> several of them are being used?
>>      
> I'd say the same order as TEMPLATE_CHROOTCONF + types:
>   ${TEMPLATE_SOURCES}.${DISTRO}
>   $TEMPLATE_SOURCES
> (and $TEMPLATE_SOURCES has a default value)
>    

Ok, I'll do like this.

> Even better, if we can find a way to use the _MIRROR variables (in
> .devscripts / environment) that other ubuntu-dev-tools packages use.
> See ubuntu-dev-tools(5).
>
> SR
>    

I'll inspect that too to see what you mean exactly.

It's always a pleasure for me to help Debian community and I'll try to 
do the better.

Thanks for interest.


Laurent Declercq