The problem with a single patch is that you need to regenerate all the
diffs even if you only change one file.

Also, if anyone has dreams of how this would allow different "features"
distributed as separate patches -- well, it is not a dream, it is rather
a nightmare if you try it that way...

Please, let's keep the patches the way they are.

+ Kim


| From:    David Brownlee <abs@netbsd.org>
| Date:    Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:21:04 +0100
|
| On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Thomas Klausner wrote:
|
| > I'm not sure I understand what you gain from the
| > all-patches-in-one-file method, but I think splitting the patches into
| > many files has some advantages when you have to maintain the package,
| > especially when updating. And it probably also saves on sup transfer
| > costs if you only have to get changed files and not the whole big
| > patch every time one of the sub-patches changes.
|
| 	'All in one file' would help reduce the time it takes for a
| 	normal 'cvs update' where most of the files are unchanged.
|
| 	Personally I'd love to be able to merge some of the subdirectories
| 	of each package to lower the inode and update cost of pkgsrc
| 	(particularly via CVS), but would that be too much of a change
|
|
| 		David/absolute
| 				       -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --
|
|
|