From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9234 invoked by uid 1002); 3 Aug 2003 17:04:32 -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 31101 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2003 17:04:32 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:04:16 +0900 Message-ID: <86u18y7jvz.wl%usata@gentoo.org> From: Mamoru KOMACHI To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20030803162741.GA16169%chutz@gg3.net> References: <200308022229.12533.vapier@gentoo.org> <200308022234.54269.vapier@gentoo.org> <200308022238.57835.vapier@gentoo.org> <867k5u22wh.wl%usata@gentoo.org> <20030803162741.GA16169%chutz@gg3.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.11.4 (Wonderwall) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i686-gentoo-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some 'proper coding' notes for ebuilds X-Archives-Salt: 42e06e02-3ad7-45b5-86c3-0ed72f737c13 X-Archives-Hash: 00271ed87cfde6a245957feb98e7042f Hi, At Mon, 4 Aug 2003 01:27:41 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: > An alternative would be to make the package depend on a later portage. Yeah, I like the idea. But the problem is portage 2.0.48 branch (neither stable 2.0.48-r5 nor unstable 2.0.48-r7) doesn't have epatch integrated into ebuild.sh, so it needs to be backported. Maybe I should file a bug report to dev-portage@g.o ;-) regards, -- Mamoru KOMACHI http://dev.gentoo.org/~usata/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list