* Re: [gentoo-dev] Some 'proper coding' notes for ebuilds
@ 2003-08-03 3:04 99% ` Mike Frysinger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Mike Frysinger @ 2003-08-03 3:04 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 812 bytes --]
On Saturday 02 August 2003 22:50, Kumba wrote:
> 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.
this was meant as a general heads up ... i'm sure the kernel team can handle
the kernel ebuilds just fine themselves ;)
as for xpatch, i havent utilized it myself and havent looked into it ... right
now 'epatch' is in portage, 'xpatch' is not ... it doesnt really matter too
much since if we upgrade all packages to use epatch, we can easily switch
over to 'xpatch'
pkgs that currently use xpatch:
app-text/a2ps
-mike
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2003-08-03 2:29 [gentoo-dev] Some 'proper coding' notes for ebuilds Mike Frysinger
2003-08-03 2:38 ` Mike Frysinger
2003-08-03 2:50 ` Kumba
2003-08-03 3:04 99% ` Mike Frysinger
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox