| 1 |
On Friday 29 July 2005 11:14 am, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 29 July 2005 17:58, Duncan wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted |
| 4 |
> > <200507291611.47342@××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××.org>, excerpted below, |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:46 +0200: |
| 7 |
> > > On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 8 |
> > >> Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and |
| 9 |
> > >> support patchlevels != 0), so my orig question stands. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > epatch already takes care of failing, that's why I was thinking about |
| 12 |
> > > that |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > :) |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > More on the point... what about replacing the current base.eclass code |
| 17 |
> > with appropriate calls to epatch? This would mean changes/fixes to |
| 18 |
> > epatch would automatically propagate, while continuing to maintain |
| 19 |
> > compatibility by keeping the base.eclass functionality around. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Well as I wrote in my previous reply, I see no objection. I wanted to make |
| 22 |
> sure this is OK with all base.eclass users, beyond kde.eclass. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
from a QA point of view, no package should apply a patch, have the patching |
| 25 |
fail, but continue to emerge ... who knows what kind of garbage you'll end up |
| 26 |
with |
| 27 |
-mike |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives