0.02USD from a pkgsrc user:

>> I would like the pattern for patch filenames to be changed. In 
>> general it is the shell pattern "patch-*", but there are two 
>> occurrences of the AWK pattern "patch-[A-Za-z0-9]+". I would like to 
>> have the underscore ("_") included in the allowed letters.
Isn't the problem here that awk and shell aren't matching the same 
thing?
And not really about the _?  If so, why not just "patch-.*"?  Sure, the
awk pattern matches more strings, but it won't match more filenames if
those names don't contain directory components.  There's always more
regexp power a la "/patch-[^/]*$" if it's needed.

And, FWIW, in the month-old version of pkgsrc I use,
there are some Perl patterns that'll need fixing.

> Naming scheme for patch files:
> - grant would rather name the patches by function
I prefer the functional naming approach, too.
It's easy to delete a patch that doesn't happen
to apply if you don't need that function.  Otherwise,
you've got to edit every patch file that's adding
strlcpy() support, eg.

>
> The other point (the naming scheme) is important, too. I noticed that 
> with encoding the file name as the patch name the order in which the 
> patches are applied only depends on the file name, not on the package 
> maintainer's opinion.
Hm.  Not "opinion" but "discretion."  If a source file can be
patched by more than one patch file, it's useful to be able to apply
them in a specified order.  You're in this situation when, eg,
you're merging in patches from other *BSDs, and you don't want
to cat the two patches into one.

>  There might be problems with dependent files, such as ./configure and 
> ./configure.ac, as well as lex and yacc files.
Glob order (and the discretion of the patch maintainer) to the rescue...

> Roland
Chris <jepeway@blasted-heath.com>