> > I still think there is a reasonable argument for allowing a simple
> > default like this without custom configuration. That is currently one of
> > the strong points of cdbs' simple-patchsys; it is very simple. Sure more
> > flexibility is nice for some people, but having good simple standard
>
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 10:06 -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
> > > It would be most helpful if 00list was optional in dpatch.
> >
> > It is, you can use the PATCHLIST variable to specify files if you use
> > dpatch.make, or just supply the list to dpatch apply if you're using it
> > directly. This is ev
> > It would be most helpful if 00list was optional in dpatch.
>
> It is, you can use the PATCHLIST variable to specify files if you use
> dpatch.make, or just supply the list to dpatch apply if you're using it
> directly. This is even documented in dpatch.make(7).
That works for dpatch.make, bu
> It would be most helpful if 00list was optional in dpatch.
It is, you can use the PATCHLIST variable to specify files if you use
dpatch.make, or just supply the list to dpatch apply if you're using it
directly. This is even documented in dpatch.make(7).
> It is already standard to prefix patch
Package: dpatch
Version: 2.0.16
Severity: wishlist
It would be most helpful if 00list was optional in dpatch. It is already
standard to prefix patches with a number corresponding to the order in
which they should be applied. All of dpatch's functionality could be
supplied by automatically generati
5 matches
Mail list logo
