dpatch (2.0.33) unstable; urgency=low As of now, dpatch is deprecated, superseded by the 3.0 (quilt) source format, and should not be used for new packages. Existing packages are strongly encouraged to migrate to the new source format, too. -- Gergely Nagy Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:13:39 +0200 dpatch (2.0.32) unstable; urgency=low [dpatch.lib.sh / dpatch-run] The behaviour of dpatch.lib.sh (used by dpatch-run, and the default templates) was changed: it now resets the timestamp of all patched files to the same timestamp within a single dpatch, if and only if patchutils is installed. [debhelper] dpatch now also includes debhelper 7+ sequence support, and adding dpatch support to a dh-using rules file is as easy as this: %: dh $@ --with dpatch [dpatch-get-origtargz] dpatch-get-origtargz was removed, as it does not work with anything else but tar.gz archives, and was becoming a source of ugly bugs and workarounds. Consequently, the dpatch-edit-patch will not try to use it, either. -- Gergely Nagy Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:53:59 +0200 dpatch (2.0.11) experimental; urgency=low With this version, the default behaviour of dpatch-edit-patch was changed to not clean the source tree before copying it. Also, a new option which is intended to ease working with trees under revision control that only have a debian/ directory, was added too. See the manual page for more information about these (the --clean and --debianonly options). Please test the new features, so we can iron out any bugs before the package hits unstable! -- Gergely Nagy Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:38:58 +0100 dpatch (2.0.9) unstable; urgency=low This version of dpatch comes with two helper scripts, which make the creation of dpatch scriptlets easier. For the most simple cases, there is /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch-run, that should be used on the she-bang line, like this: #! /bin/sh /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch-run ## foo.dpatch -- by J. Random Hacker ## DP: Patch description [And here comes the patch in the usual diff format] This dpatch-run script will do all the shell magic to make the dpatch work. For advanced uses, where something other than patch is used for applying dpatches, there is /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.lib.sh. This one is intended to be sourced by shell scripts. By default, it will still use patch, however, setting DPATCH_LIB_NO_DEFAULT to a non-empty value makes it call dpatch_patch and dpatch_unpatch, respectively. The main use of this shell library is to leave the command-line parsing and verification to the script. -- Gergely Nagy Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:34:22 +0200 dpatch (2.0.0) experimental; urgency=low This is a complete rewrite of dpatch as a shell script with a well defined interface, which provides enormous flexibility. This makes it possible to do a set of interesting things with dpatch scriptlets, like adding custom arguments (pkg-info, for printing detailed patch information, and the like), filter the patch list through cpp, and many other interesting things. However, due to the amount of new code, we feel that this rewrite needs wider testing, hence this upload to experimental. Please help, and test this release, and report any problems you may encounter! -- Gergely Nagy Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:28:31 +0100 dpatch (1.23) unstable; urgency=low Versions of dpatch up to and including version 1.22 had two developer-accessible methods of telling dpatch what patches to apply; debian/patches/00list, and the variable "$PATCHLIST". The variable $PATCHLIST was always sorted before patches were applied an unapplied, but the list from debian/patches/00list was only sorted when there was also an arch-specific list such as debian/patches/00list.${ARCH}. As of this version (1.23), dpatch no longer sorts the patch list, period. The maintainers feel that dpatch's user base is likely full of anal-retentive folk (very much like themselves :) who prefer specifying things in minute detail. If your package uses the $PATCHLIST variable to tell dpatch which patches to apply, or if you use debian/patches/00list as well as an arch-specific patch list, you may want to double-check that the patches apply in correct order when they aren't sorted. -- David B Harris Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:15:05 -0400