Summary: | list user patches in emerge --info output for a specific package | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Patrick McLean <chutzpah> |
Component: | Enhancement/Feature Requests | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Patrick McLean
2015-12-03 19:49:10 UTC
(In reply to Patrick McLean from comment #0) > Probably the nicest way to do this would be to have "emerge --info <pkg>" > display a list of the patches that were applied as part of the merge process. Should we only include the basenames of the patches? We'll have to record this information in /var/db/pkg/*/*/EAPPY_USER_PATCHES or something like that. I would imagine that basenames would be sufficient, I don't see how more information than that would be useful. I agree, just the patch names should be enough for devs to know it is user-patched. From there, the user would need to test without patches to duplicate the error, prove it is not user patch related. If need be supply the patches in attachments. It would also be nice to have a digest for the content of each patch, since it's possible that people modify/update patches in-place. |