| 1 |
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted |
| 2 |
<200507291611.47342@××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××.org>, excerpted below, |
| 3 |
on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:46 +0200: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and |
| 7 |
>> support patchlevels != 0), so my orig question stands. |
| 8 |
> epatch already takes care of failing, that's why I was thinking about that |
| 9 |
> :) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
More on the point... what about replacing the current base.eclass code |
| 12 |
with appropriate calls to epatch? This would mean changes/fixes to epatch |
| 13 |
would automatically propagate, while continuing to maintain compatibility |
| 14 |
by keeping the base.eclass functionality around. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 18 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 19 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 20 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives