From: | "Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:12:45 +0100 |
Matthias Schmidt wrote: >>> Do you mean with or without patching? >> That would be without patching. A way to find out which sources a >> particular binary corresponds to, and if these sources are the same like >> the ones being upgraded, you can replace the (different) binary with a >> fixed replacement. > This would work, but it requieres additional work (patching possibly > gcc/$foo). Yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it if it adds enough benefit. >> Yes, I meant: If there are sources, these should be updated at the same >> time, so that source compiles will contain the fix as well. > > I'm not really sure how to achieve this? If the user doesn't want his > sources updated or if he has local modifications an automatich patch > could fail. Am I thinking to complex here? :) Just warn and don't update the sources, or add the new version as a new file. Local modifications should lead to a different binary which hence wouldn't be updated in the first place :) cheers simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature