Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 May 2004 11:34:21 +0200 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [RFC] adding support for .patches and /proc/patches.gz |
| |
On Mon, 2004-05-10 19:51:07 +0100, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk <viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> wrote in message <20040510185107.GD17014@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>: > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:37:34AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > > Jon Oberheide <jon@focalhost.com> 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 jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +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)); [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |