| 1 |
Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:16:14 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sunday 29 January 2012 06:22:02 Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> epatch_user() currently looks into <CATEGORY>/<PF|P|PN> subdirectories |
| 5 |
>> of /etc/portage/patches. If the package has no revision, then PF and P |
| 6 |
>> are identical, so there's no way to specify that a patch should only |
| 7 |
>> apply to -r0. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> The patch below changes ${PF} to ${P}-${PR}. Behaviour should be |
| 10 |
>> identical for all non-zero revisions. For -r0 it will look in ${P}-r0 |
| 11 |
>> first, then in ${P} and ${PN}, as before. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> looks fine. gogogogogogogogo. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As a user with an epatch_user call in /etc/portage/bashrc, I've run into |
| 16 |
this problem myself a time or two, so yes, ++ here too. =:^) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 20 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 21 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives