| 1 |
[snip] |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Am I making any sense? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I think all of that is right on. I need to find out why the patch |
| 6 |
isn't working though. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Theoretically (if you insist), you could still use the perl's |
| 9 |
> Text::Patch route as well, but (if I'm not entirely wrong, see the |
| 10 |
> excerpted attempted patch run above) the patch would still need to be |
| 11 |
> touched up to match properly with the _3 dev release code. And it |
| 12 |
> would add a dependency to Text::Patch, and make an odd call to perl in |
| 13 |
> the middle of the ebuild. (I assume it must be made explicitly as I |
| 14 |
> don't know if perl-module.eclass has any automation for this. Probably |
| 15 |
> not since AFAICT Text::Patch isn't even installed by default). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Do you think it would be better to create a real patch than to use the |
| 18 |
perl patch (after we figure out why it isn't working)? I would think |
| 19 |
it would be easier to use the perl patch in case a different version |
| 20 |
is released so we don't have to re-create the patch each time. A |
| 21 |
Text::Patch dep wouldn't be so bad. What do you think? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
- Grant |
Archives