| 1 |
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 05:04, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 02 August 2003 22:50, Kumba wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Isn't the only time we want to avoid this on a kernel ebuild? There was |
| 4 |
> > an email many weeks ago on -dev I think (mighta been -core) which said |
| 5 |
> > to avoid using epatch on kernel sources, due to it's brute-force method. |
| 6 |
> > Also, what about "xpatch"? I had heard of this mechanism used awhile |
| 7 |
> > ago, but not recently. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> this was meant as a general heads up ... i'm sure the kernel team can handle |
| 10 |
> the kernel ebuilds just fine themselves ;) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> as for xpatch, i havent utilized it myself and havent looked into it ... right |
| 13 |
> now 'epatch' is in portage, 'xpatch' is not ... it doesnt really matter too |
| 14 |
> much since if we upgrade all packages to use epatch, we can easily switch |
| 15 |
> over to 'xpatch' |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I do not see why there should be two versions of the same thing. If |
| 19 |
epatch is broken, fix it ? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 26 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives