On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:25 AM, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
And with respect to patchfile reach, I still favor and support the "one patchfile per fix" convention, meaning a single patchfile can touch as many source files as it takes to fix a particular problem if need be, no need to make separate patchfiles for each source file if it's the same problem. Different fixes of course *must* go in different patchfiles. Based on this, the <something> part in the "patch-<something>.diff" format can either stand for the name of the file we're patching (including its extension), if we're patching a single file (e.g. patch-main.c.diff), or a string hinting the problem we're fixing with the patch (e.g. patch- darwin_defines.diff), in case we touch multiple files. These guidelines immediately lead to a clash in case a single file needs fixes for multiple, logically different problems, however; in this case I'd say it's OK to have "patch-problem1.diff" and "patch- problem2.diff" patchfiles for this sole hypothetically problematic source file.
This is what we currently have, except for this new mandatory .diff suffix (that breaks Ports compatibility)
You mean FreeBSD Ports? And, how do we break compatibility? Solely with naming conventions?I wouldn't worry too much about that, as a simple mv(1) is all that's needed to comply ;-) Or is there something else that I'm not seeing? Regards,... -jmpp