Dirk Nehring dixit:
>> Yes, and the old patches were named about as good as update-patches does
>> name them.
>
>Here I do not agree with you.
The OpenWrt-style patches aren't that well documented,
even not their filenames. And unless the package is huge,
i.e. kernel, busybox, and maybe gcc, binutils, there is
*no* benefit at using them, except if they _do_ contain
documentation at the beginning of the file.
>which includes all (20 or 30) oneliners of your fix. This is more
>clearly and helpful for everyone.
No.
>Just recall nbd's mail from 01 Dec 2006:
>
>[...]
>I don't know about those developers of FreeWRT that mentioned concerns
>about this patch structure, but for me the benefits would never outweigh
>the costs
This is [EMAIL PROTECTED], what did you expect?
In FreeWRT, things are often done differently. Usually
for a (good) reason, and rarely without thought.
bye,
//mirabile
--
"Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out
the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you feel so-o-o COOL."
-- Henry Nelson, March 1999
_______________________________________________
freewrt-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
