1 |
I do do that at times, but in this case the quickest was to start the |
2 |
emerge (glsa-check -f package) then CTRL-Z it after the unpack, but |
3 |
before the patch stage (easy because there are so many patches), delete |
4 |
patch 9914*, foreground (fg) the job and it works. |
5 |
|
6 |
My reason for starting this thread was not to flame, but try and add |
7 |
weight to others who have added to the original, long standing bug about |
8 |
this to get this patch formally deleted from the stable branch as its |
9 |
manifestly not needed for the majority of users. The very small group |
10 |
who do need this patch are using gcc4 which is hardly mainstream. Even |
11 |
though the comment was this patch was applied upstream, its actually |
12 |
physically applied by the ebuild, so why cant the ebuild just not apply |
13 |
it? |
14 |
|
15 |
BillK |
16 |
|
17 |
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 21:56 -0500, Barry.SCHWARTZ@×××××××××××××.org |
18 |
wrote: |
19 |
> "W.Kenworthy" <billk@×××××××××.au> skribis: |
20 |
> > 4. Everybodies requirements are different: unless devs get feedback on |
21 |
> > whats important to users, how would they know. I acknowledge that whats |
22 |
> > important to devs is not neccessarily going to gel for the users, but |
23 |
> > the fact that gentoo now does not have a usable desktop for a large part |
24 |
> > of its user community should be a concern for all. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> You could likely use the upstream version rather than the Gentoo |
27 |
> percolated product. That's what I do with my kernel patches, partly |
28 |
> for similar reasons as what you are dealing with. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |