[Buildroot] [PATCH v4 2/2] manual: update for multiple global patch dirs

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:
[..]
>>>
>>>
>>> -For a specific version <packageversion> of a specific package
>>> <packagename>,
>>> -patches are applied as follows.
>>> +For a specific version +<packageversion>+ of a specific package
>>> ++<packagename>+, patches are applied from +BR2_GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR+ as
>>> +follows:
>>>
>>> -First, the default Buildroot patch set for the package is applied.
>>> +. For every directory - +<global-patch-dir>+ - that exists in
>>> +  +BR2_GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR+, a +<package-patch-dir>+ will be determined as
>>> +  follows:
>>> ++
>>> +* If the directory
>>> +  +<global-patch-dir>/<packagename>/<packageversion>/+ exists.
>>> ++
>>> +* Otherwise, if the directory +<global-patch-dir>/<packagename>+ exists.
>>
>>
>> I find this wording strange:
>> '.... will be determined as follows: if the directory A exists.
>> Otherwise, if the directory B exists.'
>>
>> What about:
>> '.... will be determined as follows: A, if it exists. Otherwise, B, if
>> it exists.'
>
>
>  Actually for me, Ryan's formulation sounds more natural: if ... else if ...
> else ....


The order of if/else are both fine for me, but I was more referring to
something else. The intro sentence says: "The order will be determined
as follows". When I read this, I expect to get a summary of items (the
'order'). However, what follows is a list of conditionals ("if A")
without 'then' statement.

It's a bit like this to me:
"On lazy days, I do only two things: if I am hungry, and if I am sleepy."
while I expect more something like:
"On lazy days, I do only two things: if I am hungry, I eat, and if I
am sleepy, I sleep."

[..]

>> I think it's a pity that there is duplication between this section and
>> the one on BR2_GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR.
>> However, it seems this was an explicit request made by Arnout.
>>
>> Arnout, would it not be better to remove the duplication, but rather
>> use hyperlinks to refer from one section to the other, with the
>> detailed explanation about patch order being in this 'How patches are
>> applied' section?
>
>
>  I meant to say that the remark about numbering the patches should be
> duplicated, so that's just one sentence.
>
>  I do agree that it would be better to move the whole discussion about the
> order in which patches are applied to this section (including a specific
> comment about the linux patches), with a crossref from the global patch dir
> section. However, Ryan didn't really change that structure (there was
> already some amount of duplication), so I think it can safely be done in a
> separate patch.
>

Fair enough, but is Ryan prepared to make that follow-up patch, or
should we wait until someone takes it up?

Best regards,
Thomas