| 1 |
Dnia 2013-08-23, o godz. 11:45:57 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > 2. Should the function do automatic -p* detection, or should it |
| 5 |
> > default to -p1? Both would be overridable by an explicit -p* |
| 6 |
> > option. There are good arguments for either variant |
| 7 |
> > (see the above-mentioned bug). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina: |
| 10 |
> | Pretty please autodetection. It's a very nice feature that we seem |
| 11 |
> | to already have sanely implemented. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Michael Orlitzky: |
| 14 |
> | With epatch() still available, my instinct is to leave the -p |
| 15 |
> | detection out of PMS for now. The implementation details will be |
| 16 |
> | messy otherwise, [...] |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Michał Górny: |
| 19 |
> | I'm all for -p1. Instead of auto-detecting stuff on user's side, |
| 20 |
> | we should provide developers with a simple tool that would |
| 21 |
> | automatically 'fix' patches. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Not many new arguments, beyond what we had in the bug already. I'd |
| 24 |
> suggest that we follow the KISS principle and go with -p1. There's |
| 25 |
> always epatch if you need more fancy stuff. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If we go this way, I will try to write a nice tool/wrapper that would |
| 28 |
help 'fixing' patches. Probably something that calls 'ebuild ... |
| 29 |
prepare' with hacked dopatch() that detects patchlevel and 'rebases' |
| 30 |
the patch automatically. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Best regards, |
| 34 |
Michał Górny |
Archives