Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed change to base.eclass: patch || die
On Friday 05 August 2005 12:34, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Friday 29 July 2005 15:56, Dan Armak wrote: base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today, if patching fails the process doesn't abort. About this, there are still problems about committing a change on base.eclass to use epatch instead of patch? (so that it also takes care of recognize the right strip option) I don't think there are any problems. I've been using a modified base.eclass that died if patching failed for the last few weeks, so I know the packages I have installed don't have failing patches. Since this thread started I've modified it to use epatch and so far that's worked OK. So I think we can commit this (with epatch, that is). Can I consider the thread so far a consensus to let me do it? BTW, I've managed to lost all my mail from Thursday, so if there was something relevant in this thread could someone please forward it to me. -- Dan Armak Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 pgp57yoBzRYYI.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Proposed change to base.eclass: patch || die
Hi all,
base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack
supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today, if
patching fails the process doesn't abort. So I propose:
==
--- base.eclass 11 Jul 2005 15:08:06 - 1.27
+++ base.eclass 29 Jul 2005 13:45:39 -
@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ base_src_unpack() {
cd ${S}
for x in $PATCHES; do
debug-print $FUNCNAME: autopatch: patching
from ${x}
- patch -p0 ${x}
+ patch -p0 ${x} || die Patchfile $x failed
to apply
done
for x in $PATCHES1; do
debug-print $FUNCNAME: autopatch: patching
-p1 from ${x}
- patch -p1 ${x}
+ patch -p1 ${x} || die Patchfile $x failed
to apply
done
;;
all)
This will make some ebuilds fail which accidentally rely on non-applying
patches, which is the correct thing to do IMHO. Objections?
--
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951
pgp3JxWxcL9Pi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed change to base.eclass: patch || die
On Friday 29 July 2005 15:56, Dan Armak wrote: base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today, if patching fails the process doesn't abort. Why can't we just use epatch? -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM) pgp5kwlxwyvND.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed change to base.eclass: patch || die
On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote: Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and support patchlevels != 0), so my orig question stands. epatch already takes care of failing, that's why I was thinking about that :) -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM) pgpfq6QOcvHaZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
