From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:20:07 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] u-boot: Allow to specify a list of patches In-Reply-To: <20140717172331.GD3737@free.fr> References: <1405448794-10517-1-git-send-email-ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <20140715205341.77237719@free-electrons.com> <20140715201336.GE3351@free.fr> <53C6FB6D.2040903@mind.be> <29128166-5526-4da5-804d-72225bc05bc1@email.android.com> <53C77FC8.6060303@mind.be> <20140717172331.GD3737@free.fr> Message-ID: <53C85A27.2060907@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 17/07/14 19:23, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Arnout, All, > > On 2014-07-17 09:48 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: >> On 17/07/14 06:52, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >>> Arnout Vandecappelle schreef: >>>> On 15/07/14 22:13, 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/ >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Er, we don't... We require this specific naming scheme for contributed >>>> packages, but the code itself just takes *.patch. >>> >>> Yes sure, it's a convention only, but the question is: why did we include the package name in the convention? >> >> I think it's purely historical. And I think it never was required for patches >> in a subdir. > > So we could change the manual to not require patches to be PKG-prefixed? > > As long as they are number-prefixed, that's all we need, right? > > So, Ezequiel's patch is really no longer needed, and his use-case to use > git-formatted patches is already covered, right? Yep. Untested, of course :-) Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F