udo_richter@gmx.de(Udo Richter) 03.06.05 02:52
Rainer Zocholl wrote:
Then we'll be in patching hell, because patches will require proper ordering and depend on each other.
Don't we have that already? Does current patches do not change the ID or add a new?
I currently use 5 patches regularly, with no collisions and no patch ordering dependencies. 3 of the 5 patch menu.c without collisions.
That may not fit for every one.
None of them adds any kind of ID string.
Not so nice, IMHO. But avoids collisions...
Do you always know exactly which patches were manually applied, say 3 weeks later...i wouldn't.
Actually... My VDR + plugin sources are built from the tars by a prepare script so I can always reproduce the current code base, and I can easily upgrade to newer versions without loosing anything.
Somewhere to download the script?
I can reconstruct every major version I've used since end of January.
Actually i thought more in the direction someone else "outside" should be able to reproduce the version (at least be able to see: "Was patched with xxxx but the user forgot to mention!") and that it should "be documented", not that actually yourself might have the problem... Too i don't think that everybody first makes a script before trying a new patch. But i do think that someone is likely to forget the patch he did manually.
Rainer