From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RDpU6-0006xy-Ov for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 03:27:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D9F7E21C0AD; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 03:27:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDE021C072 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 03:27:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8334F1B4009 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 03:27:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -4.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.532 required=5.5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uM3nePIpVdMf for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 03:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5EA1B400B for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 03:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RDpTG-0006EP-Vc for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:27:06 +0200 Received: from 109.176.152.136 ([109.176.152.136]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:27:06 +0200 Received: from slong by 109.176.152.136 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:27:06 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steven J Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild Followup-To: gmane.linux.gentoo.devel Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:30:55 +0100 Organization: Friendly-Coders Message-ID: References: <20111011164918.2103A2004B@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <4E9475E1.30708@gentoo.org> <20111011170555.GV704@gentoo.org> <4E948484.1000509@gentoo.org> <20111011181358.GW704@gentoo.org> <4E948C2E.2000706@gentoo.org> <20111011214847.0d03c511@pomiocik.lan> 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" X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.176.152.136 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: d5fd9999282492b4d66c8f1b4e1823a9 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves > readability. Simple example: >=20 > # bug #123456, foo, bar > epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch > # bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah > epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-baz.patch >=20 > With multiple arguments, you can't put comments in the middle. >=20 ++ It's also a lot easier to remove the single patches when they're no longer needed. In the context of configuring, building and installing a package, the extra overhead is miniscule, whereas the above is *much* easier to maintain. --=20 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)