Looking to last message: > From: blf <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [proaudio] zita-ajbridge + Future/cleanup of proaudio > overlay Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 12:46:18 +0200 > Reply-To: [email protected]
..., I just realised, that for each attached ebuild they attach patch for it just after it, so it looks nice in mailing list archive. I'm only unsure, how better to generate patches... If ebuild is only slightly changed, it is obvious. Is this rule good even when ebuild is rewritten, deriving only small parts, like DEPEND, USE, HOME variables (and still, some DEPEND might be changed)? And should it be new-file-adding patch (with only pluses) for proposal of new ebuild? Yet, someone mentioned proaudio's IRC channel recently. But i need to understand, in what cases it makes sence. In Mon, 22 May 2017 18:09:18 +0500 Nikita Zlobin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello. I'm to ask about, how better to submit my work and proposals. > > For now i just have local overlay, where among others are fixed, > bumped, improved ebuilds, awaiting to be sent. > > Is this way OK? > > One time i submited ebuild, probably for denemo, on bugs.gentoo.org... > it was noted as interesting, and someone proposed me to be its > maintainer. But honestly, i'm not sure, i'm ready to become regular > maintainer for something. Instead i try to fix issues, i'm facing self > in various packages, what is completely irregular. > > ...For now i have to submit fixed and reworked linuxsampler ebuild, > about which i previously simply complained :)
