Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Daniel Goller <dgoller AT satx.rr.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> 
> I'm pretty sure the libpatch work that was already done supports patch urls
> and such like a regular DETAILS file would.  This conversation really needs
> to go back and reference that stuff even if it started a different way.
>
URLs are only sugar, a history of the patch itself, don't think we need
something that rivals a feature set like it exists in DETAILS

> http://wiki.sourcemage.org/libpatch
> http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7296

although interesting it is not what *I* had in mind when commenting
this sounds way too over the top for fixes and security bugs

once you require user intervention it seems to get tricky it seems,(ok,
here i had the idea of what i describe below, i leave the above since i
did mean to write that above this (including the previous emails), i was
just talking fix/security patches) but why not use the sequence numbers
even here:

copy the patches dir, the whole thing to the temp dir in which the
sourcces are, from there, using the sequence number you can easily rm
601* if the user does not want the features added by
6010_mutt_sort_someheader.h and 6015_mutt_sort_somesource.c

just run CONFIGURE, and rm 601* if some var we set in CONFIGURE is true
or false, you get the idea

and patch using the sequence numbers all the patches that are left.
simple and can mix in enhancement patches with fix/security patches.

enhancement patches should thus always be after fix/security patches, a
 number could arbitrarily be chosen say < 6000 fixes/security and > 6000
enhancements or any other number that might make more sense.

and the same default_pre_build that can deal with the patches if no
enhancement patches exist could then be run after rm of the not wanted
enhancement patches

requires less files, less checking, less sourcing and would work for
95+% of cases i think

Just my $.10

Daniel

As always this is just another idea, nothing i want to push/(en)force.
(Sorry, still a little defensive from past experiences....not sure if it
is how i write or not :)


> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEaS3U+HaycIPdpbkRAhq6AJ9+UNckkc8dJ3z08/5BLK5IR24KqwCgppmP
l/RQHqkYE/3PxUjE7Dkr+KA=
=tkXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----