Subject: Re: [change request] pattern for patch filenames
To: grant beattie <>
From: Luke Mewburn <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/29/2004 10:20:38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:28:04AM +1000, grant beattie wrote:
  | I actually find encoding the target filename in the patch filename a
  | bit superfluous -- it's already at the top of the patch file.

IMHO, I think the idea of encoding the source file name in the patch
file name is a good one, given that each current patch-?? file is
only for one source file.  This is per the current practice documented
in Packages.txt (section 4.3, paragraphs 2 & 3), which is effectively:
	only modify one source file per patch-?? file, and don't split
	patches to the one source file across multiple patch-?? files.

  | I would support naming patches after their purpose/function which is
  | much more useful:
  | patches/patch-statvfs_1
  | patches/patch-statvfs_2 (if there are multiple files that need patching=

This particular suggestion conflicts with the current practice (see above).

(All IMHO, as I'm just an occasional pkgsrc maintainer, not a pkgsrc
policy setter.)


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)