Summary: | [PATCH] etc-update automerge-trivial-changes-only flag | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Iván Pérez Domínguez <iperez> |
Component: | Enhancement/Feature Requests | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | flameeyes, kosminr |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 265040 | ||
Bug Blocks: | |||
Attachments: |
etc-update path to include the new flag
Patch to etc-update in diff unified form Patch in unified form |
Description
Iván Pérez Domínguez
2006-12-25 07:30:42 UTC
Created attachment 104711 [details, diff]
etc-update path to include the new flag
One possible implementation (patch for etc-update is attached).
Quite simple, all the code has been added out of the functions.
The first part deals with switches, the second part after
`scan' is called stops if requested.
I didn't say I'm using sys-apps/portage-2.1.2_rc4-r1. Just in case someone tries to patch etc-update and sth goes wrong. The patch doesn't include context information, maybe it should. Always submit patches in unified diff form (`diff -u` output). Created attachment 104713 [details, diff] Patch to etc-update in diff unified form Same as previous patch (in comment #1), just in unified form. I think your patch is -Reversed. Created attachment 105033 [details, diff]
Patch in unified form
You're right, I did 'diff -u newfile oldfile'. Here's the non-reversed
version.
*** Bug 266925 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 296761 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** thanks all ... i've implemented this using the flag name Diego suggested (preen) http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commitdiff;h=2b3f235988b45c3c11d57fedad12587b1536fdac |