From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:35:52 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] u-boot: Allow to specify a list of patches In-Reply-To: <20140715201336.GE3351@free.fr> References: <1405448794-10517-1-git-send-email-ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <20140715205341.77237719@free-electrons.com> <20140715201336.GE3351@free.fr> Message-ID: <20140715223552.04987eb6@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Yann E. MORIN, On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:13:36 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > The more I think about it, the more I find our policy to require > PKG-prefixed patches to be really cumbersome, since the patches already > are in a subdir named PKG/ Actually, me too. It prevents the output of "git format-patch" from being directly used as patches. > Of course, we're enforcing this naming scheme in BR2_GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR to > be in sync with what we do for our bundled patches. > > But still, if patches were just named NNNN-title.patch, that would be as > efficient at sorting the patches. The PKG- prefix is not really > required, and indeed can cause some troubles with some use-cases, such > as yours. > > Thomas, was there a specific reason we wanted the patches to be > PKG-prefixed? If not, would it make sense to just accept patches without > a PKG-prefix? I honestly don't remember what was the reasoning behind that. Arnout maybe? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com