On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:25 AM, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
And with respect to patchfile reach, I still favor and support
the "one patchfile per fix" convention, meaning a single patchfile
can touch as many source files as it takes to fix a particular
problem if need be, no need to make separate patchfiles for each
source file if it's the same problem. Different fixes of course
*must* go in different patchfiles. Based on this, the <something>
part in the "patch-<something>.diff" format can either stand for
the name of the file we're patching (including its extension), if
we're patching a single file (e.g. patch-main.c.diff), or a string
hinting the problem we're fixing with the patch (e.g. patch-
darwin_defines.diff), in case we touch multiple files. These
guidelines immediately lead to a clash in case a single file needs
fixes for multiple, logically different problems, however; in this
case I'd say it's OK to have "patch-problem1.diff" and "patch-
problem2.diff" patchfiles for this sole hypothetically problematic
source file.
This is what we currently have, except for this new mandatory .diff
suffix (that breaks Ports compatibility)
You mean FreeBSD Ports? And, how do we break compatibility? Solely
with naming conventions?I wouldn't worry too much about that, as a
simple mv(1) is all that's needed to comply ;-) Or is there something
else that I'm not seeing?
Regards,...
-jmpp
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
