Generic build script instructions

[Reini Urban]

Igor Pechtchanski schrieb:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Bas van Gompel wrote:
>>: > Each of them does:
>>: >
>>: > *) Allow more than one argument at a time (e.g. do
>>: > ``./boffo-1.0.36-1.sh prep conf build'').
>>: >
>>: > *) An ``ispatch'' command, copying a fresh patch, to make the porting
>>: > process easier. (When you're done editing, do a
>>: > ``./boffo-1.0.36-1 clean mkpatch ispatch finish all''
>>: > to get your new packages.) It backs up your old patch, to be on the
>>: > safe side.
>>:
>>: I'm not clear on what the second part does.  Could you please elaborate on
>>: the purpose of "ispatch()"?
>>
>>Ok. Let me try to make this clear...
>>
>>You install the upstream package and a new gbs. you do a
>>``./boffo-x.y-1.sh prep'', cd into boffo-x.y and edit some files.
>>You now do a ``./boffo-x.y-1.sh conf build'' and discover the
>>build succeeds. A ``./boffo-x.y-1.sh check'' reveals it passes it's
>>testsuite. You do a ``./boffo-x.y-1.sh clean mkpatch'' and
>>look at the generated patch. It looks OK. You can then do
>>`./boffo-x.y-1.sh ispatch'' to make sure you don't lose your
>>edits when you remove the boffo-x.y-directory (e.g. by doing
>>`./boffo-x.y-1.sh finish all'').
>>
>>In other words: ``ispatch'' copies the patch generated by ``mkpatch''
>>from .sinst to ${topdir}, so it can be used now, not just get included
>>by ``spkg''.
> 
> I see.  That's not quite the way I use the gbs (I never edit the patched
> directory, but keep the original edited version separately).  Perhaps
> "ispatch" is not the best name for it?  Looks like "savepatch" might be
> better...  As I never intend to use this feature, the above is just a
> suggestion.

I'd also vastly prefer "savepatch" over "ispatch". ispatch sounds 
boolean, something to check.
(I'm coming from a lisp background, but we are not only bound to the 
"patchp" notation :)
-- 
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/