bug-gnu-utils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] adding support for .patches and /proc/patches.gz


From: Jan-Benedict Glaw
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] adding support for .patches and /proc/patches.gz
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:34:21 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i

On Mon, 2004-05-10 19:51:07 +0100, address@hidden <address@hidden>
wrote in message <address@hidden>:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:37:34AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Jon Oberheide <address@hidden> writes:
> > > I'm CC'ing this to the GNU patch maintainers.  Hopefully they will have
> > > some input.
> > then 'patch' could log all the changes into the named file.  This
> > would conform to POSIX.
> 
> will do just fine.  Remember that patch(1) can handle at least some ed
> scripts.

Another way would be to have a ./linux/patches/ directory and ask every
patch to place a file down there. Then, just list all the file names
with their contents in /proc/patches.gz ...

Of course, one could even place the actual patches there and display
everything in /proc/patches.gz that's not an actual patch chunk. This
way, you can have nice patches with proper documentation (think quilt
series) and even (another CONFIG_XXX option) the full patch file inside
the kernel! For custom built kernels, *this* would be a *real*
advantage! For vanilla kernel, you wouldn't loose anything.

MfG, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       address@hidden    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier B├╝rger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
   ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]