From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8396 invoked by uid 1002); 3 Aug 2003 02:50:40 -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 26075 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2003 02:50:40 -0000 Message-ID: <3F2C7887.50103@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:50:47 -0400 From: Kumba Reply-To: kumba@gentoo.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <200308022229.12533.vapier@gentoo.org> <200308022234.54269.vapier@gentoo.org> <200308022238.57835.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200308022238.57835.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some 'proper coding' notes for ebuilds X-Archives-Salt: e60a1c12-2deb-4068-a5e2-0f734f9a8a13 X-Archives-Hash: 015f00415c790263175bff0af495fbcc Mike Frysinger wrote: > oooooooooh and stop trying to run the `patch` cmd yourself ... > > no one is cooler than `epatch` (which is integrated into portage now, so dont > 'inherit eutils'), so stop trying to think you ppl are > > -mike Isn't the only time we want to avoid this on a kernel ebuild? There was 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. --Kumba -- "Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list