Re: [lfs-dev] Patch naming

2012-01-11 Thread Steve Crosby
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:23:59 -0600 > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> Just a reminder that we did at one time adopt a patch naming convention: >> >> pkgname dash version dash short underscore descriptive underscore name >> dash patchrev3.patch >> >>

Re: [lfs-dev] Patch naming

2012-01-11 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Andrew Benton wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:23:59 -0600 > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> Just a reminder that we did at one time adopt a patch naming convention: >> >> pkgname dash version dash short underscore descriptive underscore name >> dash patchrev3.patch >> >> That is, the name should be: >>

Re: [lfs-dev] Patch naming

2012-01-11 Thread Andrew Benton
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:23:59 -0600 Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Just a reminder that we did at one time adopt a patch naming convention: > > pkgname dash version dash short underscore descriptive underscore name > dash patchrev3.patch > > That is, the name should be: > > thunderbird-9.0.1-libpng_1.5-

[lfs-dev] Patch naming

2012-01-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Just a reminder that we did at one time adopt a patch naming convention: pkgname dash version dash short underscore descriptive underscore name dash patchrev3.patch That is, the name should be: thunderbird-9.0.1-libpng_1.5-1.patch not thunderbird-9.0.1-libpng-1.5-1.patch This is not a big de