Add a new optional field "Patch-MD5". If this field is present then refuse to use the .patch unless its md5sum matches. If the field isn't present then always use the provided .patch.
This wouldn't help you match the .patch file to the .info file, but it would prevent problems like the one you encountered. -- K On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Daniel Macks wrote: > I've just had a problem arising from having plain-name .info and > .patch files. In moving some files around while trying to find at > which version/revision I introduced a bug, I managed to have the wrong > (out-of-sync) .patch for the .info I was using. IIRC, this type of > problem was mentioned (but not resolved?) when versionless naming was > discussed (which I can't find in the -devel archives right now:(, as > well as the related problem of trying to have multiple versions > present by renaming the .info but then having to fix Patch: for a > renamed .patch. > > So I was thinking about a solution based on placing the contents of > the patch-file at the end of the .info file itself. One file, so no > sync problems. The patch manpage claims that lines of junk (i.e., all > the (other) .info fields) before the actual patch data are ignored, > one could just feed the whole info-file to 'patch'. A new > percent-variable could give "the name of the info-file", so that other > fields (Patch and PatchScript) will always find the (correct) > patch-containing file, even if it gets renamed. > > So before I go about hacking fink to support this (doesn't look that > difficult), anyone else think this would be a useful functionality? > > dan > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
