forcing recent patch-2.6.1 everywhere
 

any complaints ?
-mike

Index: profiles/base/packages
================================================== =================
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/packages,v
retrieving revision 1.62
diff -u -p -r1.62 packages
--- profiles/base/packages 12 Mar 2012 09:13:37 -0000 1.62
+++ profiles/base/packages 17 May 2012 19:50:49 -0000
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
#*sys-devel/libtool
#*sys-devel/m4
*sys-devel/make
-*sys-devel/patch
+*>=sys-devel/patch-2.6.1
*sys-fs/e2fsprogs
*virtual/dev-manager
*virtual/editor

forcing recent patch-2.6.1 everywhere
 

On 05/17/2012 10:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:

any complaints ?
-mike

Index: profiles/base/packages
================================================== =================
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/packages,v
retrieving revision 1.62
diff -u -p -r1.62 packages
--- profiles/base/packages 12 Mar 2012 09:13:37 -0000 1.62
+++ profiles/base/packages 17 May 2012 19:50:49 -0000
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
#*sys-devel/libtool
#*sys-devel/m4
*sys-devel/make
-*sys-devel/patch
+*>=sys-devel/patch-2.6.1
*sys-fs/e2fsprogs
*virtual/dev-manager
*virtual/editor


Yes, please. I've suggested same once before. This will solve the
annoying DOS -line endings inconsistency crap.


Thanks, Samuli

forcing recent patch-2.6.1 everywhere
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/17/2012 03:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> any complaints ? -mike
>
> Index: profiles/base/packages
> ================================================== =================
>
>
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/packages,v
> retrieving revision 1.62 diff -u -p -r1.62 packages ---
> profiles/base/packages 12 Mar 2012 09:13:37 -0000 1.62 +++
> profiles/base/packages 17 May 2012 19:50:49 -0000 @@ -61,7 +61,7
> @@ #*sys-devel/libtool #*sys-devel/m4 *sys-devel/make
> -*sys-devel/patch +*>=sys-devel/patch-2.6.1 *sys-fs/e2fsprogs
> *virtual/dev-manager *virtual/editor

What's the advantage/reward?

Beyond having the latest stable in there.

- - Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+1WOcACgkQVxOqA9G7/aAjSAD+PPzrfJfxBrjruo4roQ7z84EM
6yhhhPWhQFnoNCjFelsA/2KsVs/9ZdT1BxFiGh7N8Rk26htZstXMj9S1XaYZJ2Li
=6IXM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

forcing recent patch-2.6.1 everywhere
 

On 05/17/2012 11:00 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/17/2012 03:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:

any complaints ? -mike

Index: profiles/base/packages
================================================== =================



RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/packages,v

retrieving revision 1.62 diff -u -p -r1.62 packages ---
profiles/base/packages 12 Mar 2012 09:13:37 -0000 1.62 +++
profiles/base/packages 17 May 2012 19:50:49 -0000 @@ -61,7 +61,7
@@ #*sys-devel/libtool #*sys-devel/m4 *sys-devel/make
-*sys-devel/patch +*>=sys-devel/patch-2.6.1 *sys-fs/e2fsprogs
*virtual/dev-manager *virtual/editor


What's the advantage/reward?


<patch-2.6.1 fails if patch contains DOS -line endings, like the ones
you get from some crappy pastebin services or Trac's webservice


>=patch-2.6.1 doesn't have this problem, and this is what developers
are using anyway


so less breakage, no possibility of these things slipping by

consistent behavior

profit!

- Samuli

forcing recent patch-2.6.1 everywhere
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/17/2012 04:15 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 05/17/2012 11:00 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 05/17/2012 03:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> any complaints ? -mike
>>>
>>> Index: profiles/base/packages
>>> ================================================== =================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/packages,v
>>> retrieving revision 1.62 diff -u -p -r1.62 packages ---
>>> profiles/base/packages 12 Mar 2012 09:13:37 -0000 1.62
>>> +++ profiles/base/packages 17 May 2012 19:50:49 -0000 @@
>>> -61,7 +61,7 @@ #*sys-devel/libtool #*sys-devel/m4
>>> *sys-devel/make -*sys-devel/patch +*>=sys-devel/patch-2.6.1
>>> *sys-fs/e2fsprogs *virtual/dev-manager *virtual/editor
>>
>> What's the advantage/reward?
>
> <patch-2.6.1 fails if patch contains DOS -line endings, like the
> ones you get from some crappy pastebin services or Trac's
> webservice
>
>> =patch-2.6.1 doesn't have this problem, and this is what
>> developers are
> using anyway
>
> so less breakage, no possibility of these things slipping by
>
> consistent behavior
>
> profit!
>
> - Samuli
>

I'm in!

+1

- - Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+1YbwACgkQVxOqA9G7/aCGtAD/TpWZt3OVe+3rvqupbJrd8hWu
TMYOHCGLhqqaIb8B2AABAIaq5UsEciS9A9PYiE23rwDuWzfZQt s+WX06Rugc7Rkk
=QgUZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----