Subject: Re: Patch naming
To: None <>
From: Chuck Yerkes <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 12/30/2003 17:36:14
Quoting Chris Pinnock (
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:49:56PM -0500, Chuck Yerkes wrote:
> > /usr/ports/foo/bar/patches/patch-Makefile_in
> > /usr/ports/foo/bar/patches/patch-configure
> > And it's a nice way to make it easier to see what's being patched.
> > 
> > Bottom line:
> > more clarity
> > less ...  hmmm.  alphabetic.?
> > 
> > I put it out there for consideration and discussion.
> IMV, the system becomes less elegant if the target pathnames are long
> (e.g. src/library/regex/simple/main.c).

So... don't present useful information cause it doesn't LOOK neat!?

That can also apply to DOS's 8.3 naming (8 letters is enough, what's
the problem?)

When I'm trying to get some of these pkg's to build slightly
differently, or work with a newer version, playing the "guess
the patch file" is just an annoyance.

If this is the only reason to not give it a useful and descriptive
name, then can I start supplying patches to make it usefully named?