On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 00:24 -0400, Dylan Carlson wrote:
> On Thu October 14 2004 22:58, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Who ever said the tarball had to have the same name as the patches
> > inside it?
> 
> I suggested putting the package name, version, arch, patch # in the 
> filename of every patch.  Because epatch isn't going to work with the 
> current scheme (##-arch-foo.patch) if all the patches for every package 
> are in a single directory.  If I'm understanding the patches.gentoo.org 
> thing correctly, and also how epatch works.

Maybe we're talking past each other here:
There's no point in redundantly including $p in every single patch name
if all the patches are in a tarball containing $P. You'd be looking at a
list of tarballs such as $P-patches.tar.bz2, each containing something
like:

patches/
3123_x86_fix-foo.patch
3124_hppa_fix-bar.patch
etc.

The only way what you're talking about makes any sense to me is if a
tarball isn't used, just a bzip2'd patch.
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux