| 1 |
On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 00:24 -0400, Dylan Carlson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu October 14 2004 22:58, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Who ever said the tarball had to have the same name as the patches |
| 4 |
> > inside it? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I suggested putting the package name, version, arch, patch # in the |
| 7 |
> filename of every patch. Because epatch isn't going to work with the |
| 8 |
> current scheme (##-arch-foo.patch) if all the patches for every package |
| 9 |
> are in a single directory. If I'm understanding the patches.gentoo.org |
| 10 |
> thing correctly, and also how epatch works. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Maybe we're talking past each other here: |
| 13 |
There's no point in redundantly including $p in every single patch name |
| 14 |
if all the patches are in a tarball containing $P. You'd be looking at a |
| 15 |
list of tarballs such as $P-patches.tar.bz2, each containing something |
| 16 |
like: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
patches/ |
| 19 |
3123_x86_fix-foo.patch |
| 20 |
3124_hppa_fix-bar.patch |
| 21 |
etc. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The only way what you're talking about makes any sense to me is if a |
| 24 |
tarball isn't used, just a bzip2'd patch. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives