Small change for epatch_user() in eutils.eclass
 

epatch_user() currently looks into <CATEGORY>/<PF|P|PN> subdirectories
of /etc/portage/patches. If the package has no revision, then PF and P
are identical, so there's no way to specify that a patch should only
apply to -r0.

The patch below changes ${PF} to ${P}-${PR}. Behaviour should be
identical for all non-zero revisions. For -r0 it will look in ${P}-r0
first, then in ${P} and ${PN}, as before.

--- eutils.eclass 3 Jan 2012 08:45:36 -0000 1.377
+++ eutils.eclass 29 Jan 2012 11:00:15 -0000
@@ -544,7 +544,7 @@

# don't clobber any EPATCH vars that the parent might want
local EPATCH_SOURCE check base=${PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT%/}/etc/portage/patches
- for check in {${CATEGORY}/${PF},${CATEGORY}/${P},${CATEGORY}/${PN}}; do
+ for check in ${CATEGORY}/{${P}-${PR},${P},${PN}}; do
EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CTARGET}/${check}
[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CHOST}/${check}
[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${check}

Small change for epatch_user() in eutils.eclass
 

On Sunday 29 January 2012 06:22:02 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> epatch_user() currently looks into <CATEGORY>/<PF|P|PN> subdirectories
> of /etc/portage/patches. If the package has no revision, then PF and P
> are identical, so there's no way to specify that a patch should only
> apply to -r0.
>
> The patch below changes ${PF} to ${P}-${PR}. Behaviour should be
> identical for all non-zero revisions. For -r0 it will look in ${P}-r0
> first, then in ${P} and ${PN}, as before.

looks fine. gogogogogogogogo.
-mike

Small change for epatch_user() in eutils.eclass
 

Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:16:14 -0500 as excerpted:

> On Sunday 29 January 2012 06:22:02 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> epatch_user() currently looks into <CATEGORY>/<PF|P|PN> subdirectories
>> of /etc/portage/patches. If the package has no revision, then PF and P
>> are identical, so there's no way to specify that a patch should only
>> apply to -r0.
>>
>> The patch below changes ${PF} to ${P}-${PR}. Behaviour should be
>> identical for all non-zero revisions. For -r0 it will look in ${P}-r0
>> first, then in ${P} and ${PN}, as before.
>
> looks fine. gogogogogogogogo.

As a user with an epatch_user call in /etc/portage/bashrc, I've run into
this problem myself a time or two, so yes, ++ here too. =:^)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman