| 1 |
Hi Seemant, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Seemant Kulleen wrote: [Wed Dec 10 2003, 09:55:36PM EST] |
| 4 |
> Here's my take on this (slightly off-topic). The way Azarah designed |
| 5 |
> epatch to be used can be seen very specifically in the xfree tarballs. |
| 6 |
> So, if we decide to implement a *STANDARD* gentoo naming scheme and |
| 7 |
> locations for all our patches then it would like: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Having just finished some work on the xfree patches for ia64, I'm |
| 10 |
familiar with the scheme. In fact, it's part of my motivation for |
| 11 |
writing the original email. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The xfree ebuilds have a few of _ia64_ patches. For example, |
| 14 |
xfree-4.3.99.901 has the following |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
5105_ia64_4.2.99.901-ati-radeon-pagesize.patch |
| 17 |
5150_ia64_4.3.0-radeon-preint10.patch |
| 18 |
5350_ia64_4.2.99.901-hp-nv-memory-barrier.patch |
| 19 |
7000_ia64_4.1.0-hp-vgaHW-memory-barrier2.patch |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I have read through each one of these and determined that every one |
| 22 |
could be changed from "ia64" to "all". That would greatly decrease the |
| 23 |
burden on the ia64 team by making the xfree team verify the patches |
| 24 |
still apply when the version is bumped. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Naturally there should still be a comment at the top of the patch to |
| 27 |
label it as an ia64-fixer so that if there is a real problem with it, |
| 28 |
the xfree team knows (1) who to contact, (2) which arch to disable for |
| 29 |
the ebuild, that kind of thing. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> However, I agree 384% with you about making patches that can be |
| 32 |
> applied across all architectures without harming or otherwise |
| 33 |
> affecting the non-this ones. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Good! :-) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Aron |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Aron Griffis |
| 41 |
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim) |
| 42 |
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76 FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0 |
Archives