[SM-Discuss] Patches in grimoires

Jeremy Blosser jblosser-smgl at firinn.org
Mon May 15 12:31:54 EDT 2006

On May 15, Arwed von Merkatz [v.merkatz at gmx.net] wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 03:38:42PM +0200, Andra?? ruskie Levstik wrote:
> > With my recent work on smgb and smbsd I've found that we have a rather
> > incosistent way of handling patches so I was doing some brainstorming on the
> > issue(with input from others) and this is what I came up with:
> I like the general idea, comments below.

Can someone explain the gain of standardizing these so much when we don't
even standardize the format of things in spell files except where
completely necessary?  If there's a benefit, ok, but we don't usually
dictate things just to dictate them.  Often times patches are from an
upstream source and I don't really think we should be modifying or renaming
these unless they don't work as-is.

> > * a directory patches in the spell dir would hold ALL the patches
> > * a format for patch filenames would be defined
> >   an example: 001-2-mypatch.diff
> >   arbitrary:  SEQ-P-NAME.diff
> >   SEQ: sequential number from 000-999
> >   P: patchlevel
> >   NAME: a name for the patch
> >   That's for the filename
> I wouldn't encode those in the filename, and I wouldn't use sequence
> numbers. This is with thoughts about a possible future auto-patching. We
> discussed this on irc once, but I don't remember all details, here's
> what I do remember:

The libpatch bug and references to working specifications is here:
This conversation should probably connect back to that one before it
retreads a bunch of old ground.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20060515/aa551a51/attachment.bin 

More information about the SM-Discuss mailing list