[debian-mysql] Fwd: patch to the debian mysql package

[sean finney]

hi ben,

On Saturday 23 February 2008 03:55:03 am you wrote:
> I tried to send the email below, but the address bounced.  I think you
> might be the same person as the sean I was trying to reach below, though
> I'm not sure.  I infer that you might be from the changelog in the mysql
> package, and that you mentioned adding the patch below.

hah, you found me... despite my best efforts.  must have been an accident that 
the other address snuck into the dpatch file.

however, the "correct" address to contact for issues like this is the "debian 
mysql maintainers" list, pkg-mysql-maint at lists.alioth.debian.org.  They're 
the ones listed in the Maintainer field for the package, which is usually the 
first place you should go.  I"ll cc the list on this email.

> I am trying to build mysql 5.0.45 backbported to debian sarge with a
> custom 3rd party patch.  The backport part worked fine, but I've been
> having trouble applying my 3rd party patch.
>
> I've traced one problem to the patch you get the credit for:
>
> ben at radix:~/mysql-build$ less debian/patches/90_upstreamdebiandir.dpatch

> The patch edits 'configure' to remove evidence of debian/Makefile,
> debian/defs.mk, and debian/control.  debian/Makefile et al don't exist
> in this package, so removing them from the configure script is required.
> Unfortunately, the patch takes them out of configure but not out of
> configure.in.  Normally, this causes no damage, since most people just
> compile the package as is.  However, since we made changes to
> configure.in (to add in some files to config/ac-local/), make noticed
> the timestamp difference and regenerated the 'configure' script.  When
> this happened, the references to debian/Makefile et al were reintroduced
> into the file.  When the compilation reached that point, it would fail
> because it was missing required files.

okay, well then i think the shortest way from A->B for you will be for you to 
also remove the references that we have removed from configure.in.  you might 
also want to grep through the other dpatch files to see if we do any other 
patching of ./configure... which you'll need to incorporate as well.

> I am curious if the patch 90_upstreamdebiandir should be changed to
> remove evidence of those three files from both configure and
> configure.in?

i would say probably not, at least not unless we decide to completely make the 
change from using the prepackaged autogenerated ./configure and friends to 
rebuilding them with autoconf/automake ourselves.   because making any change 
to configure.in means having to change the existing build-system to 
regenerate all the autofoo-generated files.  personally i'm more of the 
opinion that it's better to do so (regenerating all the files), but it also 
causes problems, needs testing, and complicates the build system a bit.

> Forgive me if this email is a bother or directed to the wrong place.  My
> experience building debian packages is limited to this experience, so
> ignorance may be blamed for any misunderstandings of the way debs are
> supposed to be  

np :)


	sean
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mysql-maint/attachments/20080223/741e70d0/attachment.pgp