Hash: SHA1

Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
>> Furthermore a lot of our patches are in the sed format and I happen to think
>> that's a good thing.
> My current view is that "sed patches" should only be used where
> "static" patches don't work, ignoring laziness (including mine)
> for the moment.

That's enough reason right there. But also, static patches are very often not
what I want and they would often break unnecessarily where a sed would not have.
Lastly I prefer to have the source changes right there in the ebuild when they
are not too elaborate and patches don't allow that.

> Why do you feel sed patches are a good thing?  Who but the ebuild
> writer would prefer that to patches?  For instance isn't it much
> easier to share patches among distros than parts of very distro-
> specific scripts, ebuilds in our case?

sed's can very easily be turned into patches when needed, so we don't lose
anything. Patches are context dependent and usually this is not why I need.
Usually I need to replace certain strings irrespective of how many or where they
are or their context and sed is the tool that does exactly this and is more
robust to changes in the source that don't matter.


- --
Gods do not want you to think, lest they lose existence.
Religions do not want you to think, lest they lose power.

Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply via email to