Re: [gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

Pete Gavin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 08:03:00PM +0200, Achim Gottinger wrote:
> > Pete Gavin wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > I normally name my patches ${PF}-gentoo.diff, and I was thinking it
> > > would be cool for ebuild to automatically check for a patch with this
> > > name in the files directory and apply it in the src_unpack phase if it
> > > exists. What do you think?
> > >
> > > Pete
> >
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> > I think this is basicly a good idea. I'm not sure if using ${PF} is
> > neccesary because one must allways copy
> > the patch even if the change has nothing to do with it.
> > Do you mean to apply the patch only if the default src_unpack function
> > is used?
> >
>
> Well, I think its better to always use the version and revision on the
> patch name, because (I think I've said this before) if you change the
> patch, it would retroactively apply to previous versions/revisions,
> thus defeating the purpose of even having package versioning.
>
>From pragmatic point of view (reduce typing and cvs size), the question
is what happens
more often (changes in the patch or in the ebuild scripts). Based on my
experiences modifications
to the scripts happen more often.
But what you said about versioning is true and using ${PF} makes the
system more transparent, so I agree.

achim~


> And to answer your question, yes, the patch should only be applied in
> the default src_unpack, the same way ${A} is only unpacked in the
> default.
>
> Pete
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@g.o
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev