On Friday 29 July 2005 19:09, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I just don't see how his comment had anything to do with PATCHES.
Gasp - communication is not error free. News to you!? I mistook him, that's
all.
> Thus, your comment doesn't make any sense to me, either.
In my context it does, unfortunat
On Friday 29 July 2005 19:02, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Don't get what you want to say... I read Diego's comment as an ironic one,
> that there's no need for the PATCHES variable, which is of course true, but
> you don't have to write "src_unpack(){ foo_unpack ; epatch some_patch }"
> just for a sing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
| On Friday 29 July 2005 18:39, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|
|>That doesn't really make any sense. You could just as easily use PATCHES
|>if you ran s/patch -p0
On Friday 29 July 2005 18:39, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> That doesn't really make any sense. You could just as easily use PATCHES
> if you ran s/patch -p0
pgpG7wF0z1ROa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
| On Friday 29 July 2005 17:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
|
|>This can be read as "it's good to use epatch" ? :P
|
|
| It's just less text to write PATCHES="foo ...", if you don't have a
src_unpack
| function in the partic
On Friday 29 July 2005 17:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> This can be read as "it's good to use epatch" ? :P
It's just less text to write PATCHES="foo ...", if you don't have a src_unpack
function in the particular ebuild.
Carsten
pgpVewopKrcSC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 29 July 2005 17:31, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> from a QA point of view, no package should apply a patch, have the patching
> fail, but continue to emerge ... who knows what kind of garbage you'll end
> up with
This can be read as "it's good to use epatch" ? :P
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
On Friday 29 July 2005 11:14 am, Dan Armak wrote:
> On Friday 29 July 2005 17:58, Duncan wrote:
> > Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
> >
> > on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:46 +0200:
> > > On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote:
> > >> Anyway, the effectiv
On Friday 29 July 2005 17:58, Duncan wrote:
> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
>
> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:46 +0200:
> > On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote:
> >> Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and
> >> support pat
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:46 +0200:
> On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote:
>> Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and
>> support patchlevels != 0), so my orig question stands.
> epatch alr
10 matches
Mail list logo
