Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On 17:26 Sat 29 Mar , Mike Frysinger (vapier) wrote: > > 1.1 sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild > > > > file : > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > > plain: > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain > > > local check base=${PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT}/etc/portage/patches > > for check in {${CATEGORY}/${PF},${CATEGORY}/${P},${CATEGORY}/${PN}}; do > > EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CTARGET}/${check} > > [[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || > > EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CHOST}/${check} > > [[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${check} > > if [[ -d ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] ; then > > EPATCH_SUFFIX="patch" > > EPATCH_FORCE="yes" \ > > EPATCH_MULTI_MSG="Applying user patches from > > ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ..." \ > > epatch > > break > > fi > > done > > This looks like it should be generic code somewhere else.
Actually, I'd say this should just be removed. If a user wants to apply a patch, they can put their own ebuild into an overlay and do it themselves (presumably if they want to patch something, they'll know how to make the simple modifications to an ebuild). By allowing the user to arbitrarily patch something means we have no idea what the user has built and is filing a bug about. If they installed an ebuild from an overlay it is a lot easier to identify what they built. Sure, they could patch the ebuild in their tree, but by supporting user supplied patches easily in this way, we are encouraging them to patch things without our knowledge. If we start supporting this across the board, I can see bugs being filed when their patches break and they don't understand what is happening. Thanks, -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com
pgp00OFv13uhm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
