From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13861 invoked by uid 1002); 3 Aug 2003 15:23:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 14506 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2003 15:23:49 -0000 From: Martin Schlemmer Reply-To: azarah@gentoo.org To: vapier@gentoo.org Cc: Gentoo-Dev In-Reply-To: <200308022304.51692.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <200308022229.12533.vapier@gentoo.org> <200308022238.57835.vapier@gentoo.org> <3F2C7887.50103@gentoo.org> <200308022304.51692.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-2WVHkc/6O4ki6zmSsmUG" Message-Id: <1059924238.8312.21.camel@nosferatu.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 03 Aug 2003 17:23:58 +0200 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some 'proper coding' notes for ebuilds X-Archives-Salt: ffe9094a-198c-449e-92d3-24275eef0a75 X-Archives-Hash: 4bcc58263030b8deb406e77211276607 --=-2WVHkc/6O4ki6zmSsmUG Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 05:04, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 02 August 2003 22:50, Kumba wrote: > > Isn't the only time we want to avoid this on a kernel ebuild? There wa= s > > an email many weeks ago on -dev I think (mighta been -core) which said > > to avoid using epatch on kernel sources, due to it's brute-force method= . > > Also, what about "xpatch"? I had heard of this mechanism used awhile > > ago, but not recently. >=20 > this was meant as a general heads up ... i'm sure the kernel team can han= dle=20 > the kernel ebuilds just fine themselves ;) >=20 > as for xpatch, i havent utilized it myself and havent looked into it ... = right=20 > now 'epatch' is in portage, 'xpatch' is not ... it doesnt really matter t= oo=20 > much since if we upgrade all packages to use epatch, we can easily switch= =20 > over to 'xpatch' >=20 I do not see why there should be two versions of the same thing. If epatch is broken, fix it ? --=20 Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa --=-2WVHkc/6O4ki6zmSsmUG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/LSkLqburzKaJYLYRAlVtAJ0TV1K+S53hWfy24xU6BYGV8AausQCeI6MK DHgaNlffiuyWaJQ7lnBeYGQ= =ku3u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-2WVHkc/6O4ki6zmSsmUG--