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 1Rrdyz-0002am-0q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:16:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CEB8E0781; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:16:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7D9E073B for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:15:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BF81B400D for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:15:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.562, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 XgW-69qMajs9 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:15:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D69301B4005 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrdxh-0006zH-93 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:15:05 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:15:05 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:15:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Small change for epatch_user() in eutils.eclass Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20261.11226.752406.675230@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <201201291416.15106.vapier@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 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 5b1a1d1 /st/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 95b25728-b837-4fdf-9a42-8e51572ae122 X-Archives-Hash: d0c6ab6cae89abbb012b382e0d6dc4a7 Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:16:14 -0500 as excerpted: > On Sunday 29 January 2012 06:22:02 Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> epatch_user() currently looks into / subdirectories >> of /etc/portage/patches. If the package has no revision, then PF and P >> are identical, so there's no way to specify that a patch should only >> apply to -r0. >>=20 >> The patch below changes ${PF} to ${P}-${PR}. Behaviour should be >> identical for all non-zero revisions. For -r0 it will look in ${P}-r0 >> first, then in ${P} and ${PN}, as before. >=20 > looks fine. gogogogogogogogo. As a user with an epatch_user call in /etc/portage/bashrc, I've run into=20 this problem myself a time or two, so yes, ++ here too. =3D:^) --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman