| 1 |
Hi Terje! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I should have explicitly discussed the distinction between upstream and |
| 4 |
third-party patches and those that are specific to Gentoo Linux. I |
| 5 |
assumed that we were talking about the former in my previous post. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Normally gentoo specific patches created by the ebuild author are kept |
| 8 |
in the files directory. A suffix of "-gentoo" is typically appended to |
| 9 |
indicate this. For example, xgammon-0.98-gentoo-makefile.patch, or |
| 10 |
something to that effect. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Sorry for any confusion that this may have caused. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Regards, |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
tod |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 05:27, Terje Kvernes wrote: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> > For patch files (especially large ones) include the URL to the patch |
| 23 |
> > in the SRC_URI string so that it will be downloaded with the source |
| 24 |
> > tarball and stored in ${DISTDIR}, i.e. /usr/portage/distfiles by |
| 25 |
> > default. See the dev-lang/python ebuild for a good example (In fact |
| 26 |
> > the python ebuild is a good example for a variety ebuild techniques |
| 27 |
> > for uncommon situations) |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> hm. the patches I need total about 1K, and I _could_ host the |
| 30 |
> patches via http. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> > If the patch files are small (working definition of small not much |
| 33 |
> > larger than the ebuild itself), placing them in the files directory |
| 34 |
> > is ok, but the former method is prefereable. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> okay, I'll try getting them to work via http. <pause for half an |
| 37 |
> hour>. okay, done. :) now just to check that things work and |
| 38 |
> submit. should I attach the patches as well? |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
Archives