randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Mar 26 08:13:38 PST 2005
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 03/26/05 09:39 CST:
> AFAIK we will "create" new patches for new versions of a package by
> simply copying the old patch to a new file with just the packageVersion
> portion of the filename changed. If this is not what has happened with
> some of the patches in the LFS repository then I don't know what to say
> really, aside from "sorry, I didn't review closely enough". If you
> could point me to a categorical example of a patch that appears to be
> just a rediff (and such a rediff wasn't required to workaround a failed
> hunk) I'd appreciate it.
The GCC-3.4.3 no_fixincludes patch, as best as I can tell, was
rediffed, but the 3.4.1 patch worked with 18 lines offset.
No big deal. I'm not sure why I even brought it up, other than to
explain why the BLFS repo will not be in sync with the LFS repo.
Let me know if you want me to commit the Expect -2 patch to the
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 126.96.36.199.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
10:10:00 up 23 days, 20:14, 5 users, load average: 0.11, 0.40, 0.22
More information about the patches