Re: patch filenames

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

 >>> > I disagree, having designed and used a packaging system
 >>> > which used this infrastructure. It works very well, is
 >>> > kind to the SCM, and is efficient to the point of brevity.
 >>> 
 >>> I regulary have to deal with files that are patched already. Adding
 >>> order means that you can't just add the change and diff again, you have
 >>> to consider whether you should modify one of the existing patch
 >>> fragments in which case you have to regen all later patches. We do *not*
 >>> have the tools for this.
 >>
 >> On the contrary, this approach works very well in practice.
 >>
 >> There are now tools to manage this sort of thing.  Even when there
 >> aren't, all that is necessary is to delete the old patch, and append
 >> the new one on the end.

> I would say, that this approach ("append at the end") is easier
> to understand and easier to apply.  It is easier to explain too,
> thus it should be expected to be less error-prone.

I'm not pkgsrc developer and nobody counts my vote but I agree with
Joerg. IMHO current scheme is easier and less error prone, doesn't
lead to patch rejects etc. etc. In order to send patches to the
upstream author all patches should be catted together and then
pkgsrc-specific part should be removed from it. I don't see any
problem here. This easy operation is made not very often because not
all patches can be sent to upstream.

-- 
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.