On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 12:40:29PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: Hi Phil,
> 2. Why revert r976? > 3. Those collection specific defaults are part of the new style for > defining Package Collections, i.e. on a "free willingly" and "default > if not set" base. So if you really want to revert it, you also have to > put the selects back into Config.in.collections. But this doesn't work with existing .config files or if you change your preselection after saving. For this, forcing some core packages are better in my eyes. Config.in.collections must be fixed therefor (by me). > 4. Indeed, I did intentionally remove those "default m if devel" > statements, on wbx's behalf. So better consult him for that (if you > didn't already do so). Sorry, was in the old patch. > 5. This fits perfectly into the "update-patches discussion", as everyone > fears too less documentation and therefore unmaintainable code. Not > always, but in this special case four words are a little less docs, > don't you agree? ;) 100% agreement. svn is not a replacement for patch documentation, you will loose all information after making dist files. Most developers are lazy document writer, so an enforcement (patch naming) is a must have. Dirk _______________________________________________ freewrt-developers mailing list [email protected] https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
