Hi all,
As long as we are on the track of discussing the book's protocol (see discussion
on -book), there is another thing I'd like to mention. The patches project for
years had a maintainer (hey Tushar, you out there?) who was fairly strict in how
the patches must be formatted and how there were named. I'd like to refresh
folks
on that protocol.
The patches must have the standard {,B}LFS header:
Submitted By: Your Name <yourname_at_linuxfromscratch_dot_org>
Date: 2005-08-18
Initial Package Version: 2.0.47
Upstream Status: Not submitted (LFS specific) (put whatever is
applicable)
Origin: (put whatever is applicable)
Description: Fixes (put whatever is applicable)
The name of the patch also should conform to the following convention:
packagename-packageversion-name_of_the_patch-versionnumber.patch
which would look like this:
package-1.2.3-build_fixes-1.patch
Notice the dashes and the underscores. The underscores are used in the name of
the
patch, everywhere else is dashes. I've noticed many new BLFS patches use dashes
in
the name and not underscores. No big deal, but was the required convention for
years and years.
Last, the patch should apply using syntax of "patch -Np1 -i nameofpatch"
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
07:07:00 up 50 days, 17:06, 1 user, load average: 0.06, 0.06, 0.08
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
