Re: [PATCH] [RFC] adding support for .patches and /proc/patches.gz

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

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
> scripts.

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.

MfG, JBG

-- 
   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));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature