| 1 |
--On Tuesday, July 08, 2003 18:27:36 -0300 Norberto BENSA <nbensa@×××.net> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
>> <cbrewer@×××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > For that kind of effort, it would be far easier to edit the ebuild |
| 6 |
>> > directly. I think you'd be surprised that on a ~x86 box the number of |
| 7 |
>> > patches that need to be added, or better yet, taken out as they are not |
| 8 |
>> > needed or break the package under certain circumstances, not to mention |
| 9 |
>> > the amount of patches that are included with some ebuilds as a sweeping |
| 10 |
>> > general purpose one-size fits all patching. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> How would MY_PATCHES allow you to not apply a patch? |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> MY_PATCHES="-notthisone.patch"? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I'm not sure I understand your statement. What are you trying to say? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> MY_PATCHES is a variable and IF is NOT defined, then there're no patches |
| 19 |
> to apply. What's the problem? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You said that hacking ebuilds was difficult and that you didn't want to |
| 22 |
have to do it to control which patches are applied to source. Then you said |
| 23 |
(quoted above) that you'd like to be able to _not_ apply patches that are |
| 24 |
listed in the ebuild. Unless I misread. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't see how your MY_PATCHES variable acheives this. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
robh@g.o / robh:irc.freenode.net |
| 31 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~robh/robh@××××××××××.asc |
Archives