[snip] > Am I making any sense?
I think all of that is right on. I need to find out why the patch isn't working though. > Theoretically (if you insist), you could still use the perl's > Text::Patch route as well, but (if I'm not entirely wrong, see the > excerpted attempted patch run above) the patch would still need to be > touched up to match properly with the _3 dev release code. And it > would add a dependency to Text::Patch, and make an odd call to perl in > the middle of the ebuild. (I assume it must be made explicitly as I > don't know if perl-module.eclass has any automation for this. Probably > not since AFAICT Text::Patch isn't even installed by default). Do you think it would be better to create a real patch than to use the perl patch (after we figure out why it isn't working)? I would think it would be easier to use the perl patch in case a different version is released so we don't have to re-create the patch each time. A Text::Patch dep wouldn't be so bad. What do you think? - Grant
