Hi, >> And that's my problem: even for smaller packages you will loose >> everything: no patch documentation > > How about you write some documentation at the beginning of > the patch file, between the $FreeWRT$ and the --- oldfile ? > > It's supposed to work that way. (We usually indent the docs > by one tabulator, so patch(1) definitively skips it.) Funny, and after "make update-patches" you still have the comments?
>> Try to find the patch which releases the IP on udhcp exit. Make >> your own opinion. > > grep? see above. And what if one single file is patched for different reasons? Maybe you can write your documentation for each purpose in there but you cannot remove it easily. >> My assumption is that the new style will be mostly unmaintainable, the > > Now, come on. FreeWRT is a relatively small project. We do not > have many packages with patches that large. If you're the respon- > sible maintainer for e.g. busybox, you know your stuff, and you > won't "ok" others' commits without double-checking. > > That said, it was clear from the beginning that the kernel will > not adopt the "update-patches" style, because many of the diffs > themselves are maintained outside. So, the busybox patches are not that small. Let's skip this system with busybox too then. I spend a lot of time cleaning up the patches for the new bb release and I don't want to get through this patchfile chaos for the next release. And I don't like this whole 'a single patch per file' system wherever it comes from. /Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ freewrt-developers mailing list [email protected] https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
