[Top][All Lists]
[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 Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature