Subject: Re: [change request] pattern for patch filenames
To: grant beattie <grant@NetBSD.org>
From: Luke Mewburn <lukem@NetBSD.org>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/29/2004 10:20:38
--Tq0TVfKnd8gnhHIS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:28:04AM +1000, grant beattie wrote:
| I actually find encoding the target filename in the patch filename a
| bit superfluous -- it's already at the top of the patch file.
IMHO, I think the idea of encoding the source file name in the patch
file name is a good one, given that each current patch-?? file is
only for one source file. This is per the current practice documented
in Packages.txt (section 4.3, paragraphs 2 & 3), which is effectively:
only modify one source file per patch-?? file, and don't split
patches to the one source file across multiple patch-?? files.
| I would support naming patches after their purpose/function which is
| much more useful:
|=20
| patches/patch-statvfs_1
| patches/patch-statvfs_2 (if there are multiple files that need patching=
..)
This particular suggestion conflicts with the current practice (see above).
(All IMHO, as I'm just an occasional pkgsrc maintainer, not a pkgsrc
policy setter.)
Cheers,
Luke.
--Tq0TVfKnd8gnhHIS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)
iD8DBQFA4LXWpBhtmn8zJHIRAvY1AJ9aWvd/K3vcFJvBs3P5hEP7uHGIzACg1QP/
7WmkGiGhS1Y6SfWWMjDFuPQ=
=AjdY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Tq0TVfKnd8gnhHIS--