| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom@×××××××××.com> posted |
| 3 |
> 48D0177B.2010002@×××××××××.com, excerpted below, on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 |
| 4 |
> 22:30:51 +0200: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> 1) Add a symlink in GNU patch ebuild to symlink patch to gpatch |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You mean the other way, right? gpatch -> patch , since we already have |
| 11 |
> patch, and need gpatch if the below is to work. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Or did you mean change the sys-devel/patch ebuild so the executable is |
| 14 |
> named gpatch instead of patch, then create a symlink patch -> gpatch as |
| 15 |
> suggested above. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> 2) Change references to patch in eclass/eutils.eclass to gpatch |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> This makes sense to me. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
Here's another idea and I don't know why I didn't think of it sooner.. |
| 25 |
Instead of any system change to the patch ebuild.. Inside the |
| 26 |
eutils.eclass do a quick check for gpatch and if it exists use that vs |
| 27 |
patch. I'm trying to think of any circumstances where this would fail.. |
Archives