Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Patches in grimoires

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Flavien Bridault <vlaaad AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Patches in grimoires
  • Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:03:03 +0200

Le lundi 15 mai 2006 à 11:31 -0500, Jeremy Blosser a écrit :
> 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.

I understood one of the main goal was automatic patching. But all the
informations in the header are not necessary for that indeed, but I
think it's rather a good idea to do that. What do you find not enough
standardized in spell files ? If you are right anyway, it would not be
bad to start somewhere ;-)

>
> > > * 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:
> http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7296
> This conversation should probably connect back to that one before it
> retreads a bunch of old ground.
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
--
Flavien Bridault

Disk, Graphics, Graphics-libs sections Guru
Source Mage GNU/Linux - http://www.sourcemage.org

irc: vlaaad
jabber: vlaaad AT amessage.be

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page