Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed change to base.eclass: patch || die

2005-07-29 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Friday 29 July 2005 17:31, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 from a QA point of view, no package should apply a patch, have the patching
 fail, but continue to emerge ... who knows what kind of garbage you'll end
 up with
This can be read as it's good to use epatch ? :P

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)


pgp80OuYzHa9r.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed change to base.eclass: patch || die

2005-07-29 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 29 July 2005 17:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
 This can be read as it's good to use epatch ? :P

It's just less text to write PATCHES=foo ..., if you don't have a src_unpack 
function in the particular ebuild.


Carsten


pgpVewopKrcSC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed change to base.eclass: patch || die

2005-07-29 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Friday 29 July 2005 19:02, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
 Don't get what you want to say... I read Diego's comment as an ironic one,
 that there's no need for the PATCHES variable, which is of course true, but
 you don't have to write src_unpack(){ foo_unpack ; epatch some_patch }
 just for a single patch. I'm a bit surprised by such a comment on this
 triviality.
No I wasn't saying that it's useless to use PATCHES.. actually, if this is 
going to be fixed (the failure stuff) I think I'll start using it more.
What I was saying was that Mike's comment could have been read as just move 
to epatch, if something breaks (like packages dying as the patch fails to 
apply) it was broken QA-wise before.

No irony, really.

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)


pgp9VWpTyj6Nv.pgp
Description: PGP signature