| 1 |
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 21:55, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 2 |
> Here's my take on this (slightly off-topic). The way Azarah designed |
| 3 |
> epatch to be used can be seen very specifically in the xfree tarballs. |
| 4 |
> So, if we decide to implement a *STANDARD* gentoo naming scheme and |
| 5 |
> locations for all our patches then it would like: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> xxx_arch_${P*}-description.patch |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> xxx = number -- determines order in which it is applied |
| 10 |
> ${P*} can be either ${PN} if the patch applies well enough to all |
| 11 |
> versions, ${P} if specifically for one, or ${PF} if it's just for this |
| 12 |
> revision of the ebuild (though epatch doesn't know about that, so that's |
| 13 |
> thorny I guess). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> However, I agree 384% with you about making patches that can be applied |
| 16 |
> across all architectures without harming or otherwise affecting the |
| 17 |
> non-this ones. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If we really want to enforce this, we should deprecate and then remove |
| 20 |
the _arch_ section of the syntax for bulk patching so anyone using it is |
| 21 |
forced to have clean multi-arch patches. |
Archives