[Buildroot] [PATCH] u-boot: Allow to specify a list of patches

[Ezequiel García]

Hi everyone,

On 18 Jul 01:20 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
[..]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thomas, was there a specific reason we wanted the patches to be
> >>>>> PKG-prefixed? If not, would it make sense to just accept patches without
> >>>>> a PKG-prefix?
> >>>>
> >>>> Er, we don't... We require this specific naming scheme for contributed
> >>>> packages, but the code itself just takes *.patch.
> >>>
> >>> Yes sure, it's a convention only, but the question is: why did we include the package name in the convention?
> >>
> >>  I think it's purely historical. And I think it never was required for patches
> >> in a <pkgname> subdir.
> > 
> > So we could change the manual to not require patches to be PKG-prefixed?
> > 
> > As long as they are number-prefixed, that's all we need, right?
> > 
> > So, Ezequiel's patch is really no longer needed, and his use-case to use
> > git-formatted patches is already covered, right?
> 
>  Yep.
> 
>  Untested, of course :-)
> 

I did a quick test in here. It seems GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR works perfectly,
and it's a lot cleaner than having N options, one for each supposedly special
package, as it's keeps all the modification to vanilla in one place.

So I strongly support removing all the UBOOT_PATCH, LINUX_PATCH, and any other
FOO_PATCH options out there.

Any brave hacker stepping up? :)
-- 
Ezequiel Garcia, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar