Randy McMurchy wrote: > Upstream is notorious for changing the patch content but not changing > the name. And we don't see changes. This can only be a bad thing. > There is nothing gained by changing the patch and calling it an LFS > patch. This can only be a losing situation (upstream changes it, but > we have no way of knowing it).
As I mentioned in the Trac ticket, if they are in the habit of changing the patch without changing the name, and we link directly to them, essentially we open ourselves up to a situation where we link to an untested (by us) patch. At least if we make a snapshot of what they released, and we commit it after testing (as I did with this one) then we are working with a known patch. I'm not completely disagreeing with you, just bringing up a point you may not have considered. > Why can't we just download from the upstream location and then apply > it in the build? Perhaps we could. LFS, to my memory, has always redistributed patches. It was part of the policy of keeping a patches repository. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
