udo_richter@xxxxxx(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
