Add ARM files

[dh-make-perl] / dev / arm / libclass-accessor-perl / libclass-accessor-perl-0.31 / debian / patches / manpage_typo.diff

diff --git a/dev/arm/libclass-accessor-perl/libclass-accessor-perl-0.31/debian/patches/manpage_typo.diff b/dev/arm/libclass-accessor-perl/libclass-accessor-perl-0.31/debian/patches/manpage_typo.diff
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..45f9a92
--- /dev/null
+++ b/dev/arm/libclass-accessor-perl/libclass-accessor-perl-0.31/debian/patches/manpage_typo.diff
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+Index: libclass-accessor-perl/lib/Class/Accessor.pm
+===================================================================
+--- libclass-accessor-perl.orig/lib/Class/Accessor.pm  2007-09-23 20:46:35.000000000 +0200
++++ libclass-accessor-perl/lib/Class/Accessor.pm       2007-09-23 20:50:22.000000000 +0200
+@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
+ One for each piece of data in your object.  While some will be unique,
+ doing value checks and special storage tricks, most will simply be
+ exercises in repetition.  Not only is it Bad Style to have a bunch of
+-repetitious code, but its also simply not lazy, which is the real
++repetitious code, but it's also simply not lazy, which is the real
+ tragedy.
+ 
+ If you make your module a subclass of Class::Accessor and declare your
+@@ -233,8 +233,8 @@
+ it will throw an exception.  It only uses set() and not get().
+ 
+ B<NOTE> I'm not entirely sure why this is useful, but I'm sure someone
+-will need it.  If you've found a use, let me know.  Right now its here
+-for orthoginality and because its easy to implement.
++will need it.  If you've found a use, let me know.  Right now it's here
++for orthoginality and because it's easy to implement.
+ 
+     package Foo;
+     use base qw(Class::Accessor);
+@@ -505,7 +505,7 @@
+ Direct hash access is, of course, much faster than all of these, but it
+ provides no encapsulation.
+ 
+-Of course, its not as simple as saying "Class::Accessor is slower than
++Of course, it's not as simple as saying "Class::Accessor is slower than
+ average".  These are benchmarks for a simple accessor.  If your accessors do
+ any sort of complicated work (such as talking to a database or writing to a
+ file) the time spent doing that work will quickly swamp the time spend just
+@@ -611,7 +611,7 @@
+         return $self->SUPER::email(@_);
+     }
+ 
+-There's a subtle problem in the last example, and its in this line:
++There's a subtle problem in the last example, and it's in this line:
+ 
+     return $self->SUPER::email(@_);
+ 
+Index: libclass-accessor-perl/README
+===================================================================
+--- libclass-accessor-perl.orig/README 2007-09-23 20:48:38.000000000 +0200
++++ libclass-accessor-perl/README      2007-09-23 20:49:12.000000000 +0200
+@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
+     One for each piece of data in your object. While some will be unique,
+     doing value checks and special storage tricks, most will simply be
+     exercises in repetition. Not only is it Bad Style to have a bunch of
+-    repetitious code, but its also simply not lazy, which is the real
++    repetitious code, but it's also simply not lazy, which is the real
+     tragedy.
+ 
+     If you make your module a subclass of Class::Accessor and declare your