popt and patch policy

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Tue Apr 4 19:23:35 PDT 2006

Archaic wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 08:52:21PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Using a debian patch is OK if it works for us.
> Then why don't we use upstream patches? We always lfs-ize them? 

IMO, if an upstream patch works, we put it in the book (with the url),
but its not needed in the patches project.  If the patch needs to be
modified then we do that, including lfs-izing (is that a word :) ).  We
then put it in the patches repository.

> And if
> what Randy is saying about this popt patch only adding extra arch
> support is accurate (and I would tend to believe him), why is it in the
> book?

OK, if it isn't doing anything for us, then we don't need to use it, but
I think we need to say why we aren't using the "latest" version.

I just saw Dan's comment and that makes this discussion moot as far as
popt goes.

  -- Bruce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list