Hi Maxim, On Fri, 31 May 2024 at 21:49, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I preferred inheritance to avoid having to manually sync things in the > long run... (hopefully the graft gets ungrafted before 'patch' amasses > new phatces, but we never know...) What would be the long run? ;-) Well, from my perspective, there is nothing to manually sync in the future. I mean, the only patch applied to release “2.7.6” will be still required for patch/fixed; hence one will need to do what I am proposing if ’patch’ is removed. Else if ’patch’ receives some security fixes, then it seems expected to assume that the fix will be included in the latest patch (here ’patch/fixed’). Last, please note that ’patch’ is barely modified. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ git log --format="%cd %s" -- gnu/packages/base.scm | grep 'gnu: patch' Thu May 30 11:35:13 2024 -0400 gnu: patch: Fix indentation. Sun Apr 22 22:40:48 2018 +0200 gnu: patch: Work around a cross-compilation issue. Wed Mar 14 22:11:34 2018 +0100 gnu: patch: Update to 2.7.6. Fri Jun 12 15:46:25 2015 +0300 gnu: patch: Set PATH_MAX for Hurd systems. Mon Mar 9 22:56:50 2015 -0400 gnu: patch: Update to 2.7.5. Sat Mar 7 20:34:50 2015 -0500 Revert "gnu: patch: Update to 2.7.5." Sun Mar 8 00:32:11 2015 +0100 gnu: patch: Update to 2.7.5. Wed Feb 11 11:23:46 2015 +0100 gnu: patch: Update to 2.7.4. Fri Feb 6 13:53:28 2015 +0100 gnu: patch: Add 2.7.4 and make it a replacement for the default one. Sat Apr 27 00:23:19 2013 +0200 gnu: patch: Update to 2.7.1. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- I still think that it eases to have the patch close to the source instead of coming from inheritance. Anyway. :-) Cheers, simon
