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 1OUXAk-0008Os-JH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 03:44:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 89E7CE0908; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 03:43:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-iw0-f181.google.com (mail-iw0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D39AE0908 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 03:43:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iwn5 with SMTP id 5so50950iwn.40 for ; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:43:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lMvsdDcMUQ+lQ/27n/p3C43DU7l+kcnmzy2h16aTqEs=; b=Hbi0MUi3mIIH1RrEnpKVsIe+vGEBNYXEK1TxZYCREF6bKMaSH+zn/Kfs7FiGdOuStQ kfxtakM/fXb+aNdxrw5F6w4p5EV+iBVyvsIuHFgsSuoyrzS/V932f0CeiGTOadDKVC10 zSU3KnhVWxp9yEznfwSejt1W3B17PgDUKfOL8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=cWVleWT3/eOQ/aU/zWZlPvG0YT/f0WgTWBR22z53t32dIY3684O57ME60FzAezMA+3 jGBQxt2v93g6P0p5EwxDvN6ptTE1MGxARmPemMNUfkPwggldecIqCLYE+73vVo1qU2yb 3mC25ER73SuH563EsTbYKFmcYg9EpYRvsrvdI= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.0.68 with SMTP id 4mr33424icb.92.1278042209197; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.4.79 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 20:43:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4C2BDD7C.2010406@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 20:43:29 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Patch via perl script in an ebuild? From: Grant To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: fc83080b-3b89-44d4-ad47-7967f2274d5b X-Archives-Hash: aec97723d753057176012fd1c81d4a78 [snip] > Am I making any sense? I think all of that is right on. I need to find out why the patch isn't working though. > Theoretically (if you insist), you could still use the perl's > Text::Patch route as well, but (if I'm not entirely wrong, see the > excerpted attempted patch run above) the patch would still need to be > touched up to match properly with the _3 dev release code. And it > would add a dependency to Text::Patch, and make an odd call to perl in > the middle of the ebuild. (I assume it must be made explicitly as I > don't know if perl-module.eclass has any automation for this. Probably > not since AFAICT Text::Patch isn't even installed by default). Do you think it would be better to create a real patch than to use the perl patch (after we figure out why it isn't working)? I would think it would be easier to use the perl patch in case a different version is released so we don't have to re-create the patch each time. A Text::Patch dep wouldn't be so bad. What do you think? - Grant