From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8B213888F for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8428321C097; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo4-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo4-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de [81.169.146.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EB5021C08B for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:07 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :IW0NeWCpcPchHrcnS4ebzBgQnKHTmUiSF2JlOcyy9p4roSnp5yQo4oJ5cg== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from pinacolada.localnet (88-133-183-17.hsi.glasfaser-ostbayern.de [88.133.183.17]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 37.14 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id z04517r9IBs5qhM (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve secp521r1 with 521 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate) for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:54:05 +0200 (CEST) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:54:05 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.2.3; KDE/4.14.12; x86_64; ; ) References: <22049.17676.1822.986579@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20151018104847.50ab5752.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20151018112356.6b3d7be6@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20151018112356.6b3d7be6@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201510181354.05301.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: a6b0538e-5e0a-44f3-a1e8-53f0c780d2a9 X-Archives-Hash: 749ec6eef41bb6d83d175130a491558e Am Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2015, 11:23:56 schrieb Alexis Ballier: > > Why not, but when exactly would eapply fail where epatch wouldn't > while it should have ? > Different issue but- if your patch only adds a subdirectory, eapply will work fine while epatch may add the subdir at a random level of your source tree. Happened to me already. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/