"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" posted
49c8d6ee.3070...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 24 Mar 2009
13:49:50 +0100:
> 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.
The preference makes sense, but the statement
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:51:28 +0100
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 23-03-2009 11:41:08 +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> > People split into three groups:
> >
> > - Friends of ${P}-fix-issue.patch naming
> > - Friends of ${PN}-fix-issue.patch naming
> > - Friends of ${PN}-1.2.3-fix-issue.p
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> I think what's missing is the following observation:
>
> ${PN}-fix-issue.patch naming is bad if you patch code that is (likely)
> to change in newer releases. This is almost always the case. Ultimate
> example, patch something in ffmpeg or mplayer, and the next snapshot
>
On 23-03-2009 11:41:08 +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> People split into three groups:
>
> - Friends of ${P}-fix-issue.patch naming
> - Friends of ${PN}-fix-issue.patch naming
> - Friends of ${PN}-1.2.3-fix-issue.patch naming
>
> Qualities
[snip]
I think what's missing is the foll
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Alin Năstac wrote:
>
>> I suppose what everyone does in their part of the tree is their
>> business, but a small subset of packages I maintain have other
>> maintainers as well. It is annoying to see rules you assume being
>> respected on your ebuilds being broken at every bump
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:04:32 +0100
Alin Năstac wrote:
> I suppose what everyone does in their part of the tree is their
> business, but a small subset of packages I maintain have other
> maintainers as well. It is annoying to see rules you assume being
> respected on your ebuilds being broken at
On 3/23/09 1:44 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Alin Năstac wrote:
>
>> Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
>> you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
>> (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).
>>
>
> What exactly is your problem that you are t
On 3/23/09 1:42 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:19:26 +0100
> Alin Năstac wrote:
>
>
>> Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
>> you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
>> (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).
>>
>
>
Alin Năstac wrote:
Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
(foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).
What exactly is your problem that you are trying to solve here? Posting
to the community to stop
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:19:26 +0100
Alin Năstac wrote:
> Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
> you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
> (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).
No. It's done this way for a reason.
--
gcc-porting,
On 3/22/09 11:47 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:50:26 +0100
> Alin Năstac wrote:
>
>
>> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
>> versions than ${PV}.
>> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
>>
>
> Um, why?
>
> I'm not having six
Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
>> versions than ${PV}.
>> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
>
> Um, why?
>
> I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
> FILESDIR.
Good point.
Sebastian
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:24:26 -0400
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:
> >
> >> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> >> versions than ${PV}.
> >> Is that hard to create a new p
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:50:26 +0100
Alin Năstac wrote:
> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> versions than ${PV}.
> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
Um, why?
I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
FILESDIR.
--
14 matches
Mail list logo
