On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:11:44PM +0100, you [Horst von Brand] wrote:
> Ville Herva <vherva@niksula.hut.fi> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > With a directory, you lose the information of in which order the patches
> > have been applied - unless of course you resort to file dates or some
> > such.
>
> Pfui! Think patches 1, 2, 3 in this order; with 2a later superseeding 2...
Well, what way 2a supersedes 2? diff-2-2a? That would add a "2-2a" entry to
the patches dir.
But clearly this scheme is not suited for nor aimed at maintaining a tree.
It is more useful when you build a kernel from already existing bits: I
usually take stable tree X, then pre-patch Y, ac- or aa- patch Z and stuff
like newer raid/lvm patch, ide-patch, reiserfs patch, e2compr patch,
lowlatency patch etc. Later I have trouble remembering which patches went in
to that particular kernel (and which versions of those patches.)
> They do it in RPM's spec files, listing the patches (and saying if, and
> perhaps when, in what order) they have to be applied. A source RPM is not
> that much more than a cpio(1)-ball of the sources, patches, and .spec, very
> handy a _single_ file.
Yes, perhaps I should make rpm out of each kernel I build - but then again
that won't help with boot disks nor with non-redhat systems.
-- v --
v@iki.fi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:16 EST