| 1 |
On Saturday 02 August 2003 22:50, Kumba wrote: |
| 2 |
> Isn't the only time we want to avoid this on a kernel ebuild? There was |
| 3 |
> an email many weeks ago on -dev I think (mighta been -core) which said |
| 4 |
> to avoid using epatch on kernel sources, due to it's brute-force method. |
| 5 |
> Also, what about "xpatch"? I had heard of this mechanism used awhile |
| 6 |
> ago, but not recently. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
this was meant as a general heads up ... i'm sure the kernel team can handle |
| 9 |
the kernel ebuilds just fine themselves ;) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
as for xpatch, i havent utilized it myself and havent looked into it ... right |
| 12 |
now 'epatch' is in portage, 'xpatch' is not ... it doesnt really matter too |
| 13 |
much since if we upgrade all packages to use epatch, we can easily switch |
| 14 |
over to 'xpatch' |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
pkgs that currently use xpatch: |
| 17 |
app-text/a2ps |
| 18 |
-mike |
Archives