From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22258 invoked by uid 1002); 11 Dec 2003 09:32:30 -0600 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 3027 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2003 09:32:29 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:32:28 -0500 From: Aron Griffis To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20031211153228.GA1987@time> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20031211014932.GC2313@time> <1071111336.29686.7.camel@sephora> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1071111336.29686.7.camel@sephora> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch-specific patches X-Archives-Salt: 4da036fa-0a83-4b94-8703-7ceb98f299df X-Archives-Hash: 43d18d0f3752e029575664d19cfa14c0 --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Seemant, Seemant Kulleen wrote: [Wed Dec 10 2003, 09:55:36PM EST] > Here's my take on this (slightly off-topic). The way Azarah designed > epatch to be used can be seen very specifically in the xfree tarballs.=20 > So, if we decide to implement a *STANDARD* gentoo naming scheme and > locations for all our patches then it would like: Having just finished some work on the xfree patches for ia64, I'm familiar with the scheme. In fact, it's part of my motivation for writing the original email. The xfree ebuilds have a few of _ia64_ patches. For example, xfree-4.3.99.901 has the following 5105_ia64_4.2.99.901-ati-radeon-pagesize.patch 5150_ia64_4.3.0-radeon-preint10.patch 5350_ia64_4.2.99.901-hp-nv-memory-barrier.patch 7000_ia64_4.1.0-hp-vgaHW-memory-barrier2.patch I have read through each one of these and determined that every one could be changed from "ia64" to "all". That would greatly decrease the burden on the ia64 team by making the xfree team verify the patches still apply when the version is bumped. Naturally there should still be a comment at the top of the patch to label it as an ia64-fixer so that if there is a real problem with it, the xfree team knows (1) who to contact, (2) which arch to disable for the ebuild, that kind of thing. > However, I agree 384% with you about making patches that can be > applied across all architectures without harming or otherwise > affecting the non-this ones. Good! :-) Aron --=20 Aron Griffis Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim) Key fingerprint =3D E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76 FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0 --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/2I4MJrHF4yAQTrARAkS+AKCGJ2CRF1XQfQ+A4xiiOeYHNBXMzwCeP6zT G1My8kdTyHySh8re+EeKP+o= =AMWd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--