| 1 |
On Friday 29 July 2005 17:58, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted |
| 3 |
> <200507291611.47342@××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××.org>, excerpted below, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:46 +0200: |
| 6 |
> > On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and |
| 8 |
> >> support patchlevels != 0), so my orig question stands. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > epatch already takes care of failing, that's why I was thinking about |
| 11 |
> > that |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > :) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> More on the point... what about replacing the current base.eclass code |
| 16 |
> with appropriate calls to epatch? This would mean changes/fixes to epatch |
| 17 |
> would automatically propagate, while continuing to maintain compatibility |
| 18 |
> by keeping the base.eclass functionality around. |
| 19 |
Well as I wrote in my previous reply, I see no objection. I wanted to make |
| 20 |
sure this is OK with all base.eclass users, beyond kde.eclass. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Dan Armak |
| 24 |
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) |
| 25 |
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key |
| 26 |
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 |
Archives