On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 23:21 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Thanks for the quick response. Just waiting for Thomas now. :) > As far as moving it goes, I'm all for it, I figured you were probably gonna do that at somepoint anyway. I do have commits pending to put in x86/trunk for x86_64.
But before I do commit there are a some things I want to bring up. One is numbering for patches, right now sequential order won't cut it to well, right now I have several patches that are specific to x86_64 mainly because of the use of cross-lfs so I can do a sane multilib build. I think we should do something similar to what Fedora does in their specfiles where they group different types of patches together in a different set of numbers. For the livecd it would be like 1-10 are reserved for common patches to all arches, then from there groups of 10 for arch specific patches for each arch. I think this would lower the potential of having overriding patch numbers, I already ran into this with the recent gcc4 upgrade, I had to renumber some of the patches. It's not a big deal but would be good thing for the future I think. -- Thomas LFS User : 4729 / Linux User : 298329 kitt - Powered by: Linux 2.6.12.3 12:53:25 up 6 days, 21:56, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.07
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
