Re: [PATCH] [RFC] adding support for .patches and /proc/patches.gz
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 04:35:33 EST
On Mon, 2004-05-10 19:51:07 +0100, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message <20040510185107.GD17014@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:37:34AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Jon Oberheide <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > I'm CC'ing this to the GNU patch maintainers. Hopefully they will have
> > > some input.
> > then 'patch' could log all the changes into the named file. This
> > would conform to POSIX.
> will do just fine. Remember that patch(1) can handle at least some ed
Another way would be to have a ./linux/patches/ directory and ask every
patch to place a file down there. Then, just list all the file names
with their contents in /proc/patches.gz ...
Of course, one could even place the actual patches there and display
everything in /proc/patches.gz that's not an actual patch chunk. This
way, you can have nice patches with proper documentation (think quilt
series) and even (another CONFIG_XXX option) the full patch file inside
the kernel! For custom built kernels, *this* would be a *real*
advantage! For vanilla kernel, you wouldn't loose anything.
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@xxxxxxxxxx . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
Description: Digital signature