| 1 |
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
49C8D6EE.3070401@g.o, excerpted below, on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 |
| 3 |
13:49:50 +0100: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Lastly I prefer to have the source changes right there in the ebuild |
| 6 |
> when they are not too elaborate and patches don't allow that. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The preference makes sense, but the statement based on it, that patches |
| 9 |
don't allow putting the change in the ebuild, doesn't. I've used here |
| 10 |
document based patches in my own bash scripts to good effect so I know it |
| 11 |
works, and if it's working in my bash scripts, it's going to work in bash |
| 12 |
script based ebuilds as well. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The only reason patches would need to be file based would be convenience, |
| 15 |
and as soon as it's an inconvenience, with the convenience being having |
| 16 |
them in the ebuild itself, here document based patches to the rescue! =:^) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That "sed", "said" (ha! =:^) does have certain advantages as you pointed |
| 19 |
out, when a specific string change is desired, regardless of context, |
| 20 |
which may well change between versions. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 24 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 25 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives