Hi Seemant, Seemant Kulleen wrote: [Wed Dec 10 2003, 09:55:36PM EST] > Here's my take on this (slightly off-topic). The way Azarah designed > epatch to be used can be seen very specifically in the xfree tarballs. > So, if we decide to implement a *STANDARD* gentoo naming scheme and > locations for all our patches then it would like:
Having just finished some work on the xfree patches for ia64, I'm
familiar with the scheme. In fact, it's part of my motivation for
writing the original email.
The xfree ebuilds have a few of _ia64_ patches. For example,
xfree-4.3.99.901 has the following
5105_ia64_4.2.99.901-ati-radeon-pagesize.patch
5150_ia64_4.3.0-radeon-preint10.patch
5350_ia64_4.2.99.901-hp-nv-memory-barrier.patch
7000_ia64_4.1.0-hp-vgaHW-memory-barrier2.patch
I have read through each one of these and determined that every one
could be changed from "ia64" to "all". That would greatly decrease the
burden on the ia64 team by making the xfree team verify the patches
still apply when the version is bumped.
Naturally there should still be a comment at the top of the patch to
label it as an ia64-fixer so that if there is a real problem with it,
the xfree team knows (1) who to contact, (2) which arch to disable for
the ebuild, that kind of thing.
> However, I agree 384% with you about making patches that can be
> applied across all architectures without harming or otherwise
> affecting the non-this ones.
Good! :-)
Aron
--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76 FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
