patchfiles and specifying -p

[Ryan Schmidt]

On May 17, 2010, at 05:59, Rainer Müller wrote:

> Whatever syntax we choose, it should probably be generalized to allow
> any special patch options to be passed. I agree that -p will probably be
> the most used argument. But it could also be required to ignore
> whitespace with -l or increase the fuzz factor with -F.
> 
> Just adding another colon separated parameter looks a bit strange if you
> have no subdir or tag or just one of them:
> 
> patchfiles foo.diff:subdir:tag:-p2
> patchfiles foo.diff::tag:-p2
> patchfiles foo.diff:subdir::-p2
> patchfiles foo.diff:::-p2
> 
> Another option would be to make it a list:
> 
> patchfiles {foo.diff -p2} bar.diff
> 
> Other ideas?

Do we really need any changes? I mean we've gotten by so far without them.

If I have a patch that has too much fuzz, I regenerate the patch. If it needs a -p option, I specify it in the patch.pre_args, like the guide says to. If I want to mix this patch with other patches already in the port that use a different -p option, I edit the patches so they all use the same -p option.