Re: [PATCH] Various icedtea6 patches

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>>> From 9c9ef4fde4003a3bc9af73462552edde5d46c909 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden>
>>> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:05:48 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH 3/5] gnu: icedtea6: patch patches in separate build phase.
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/java.scm (icedtea6)[arguments]: patch patches in a separate
>>>   build phase `patch-patches' instead of `patch-paths'.
>>
>> Is it really patches that are being patched?  Not obvious from a quick
>> look.
>
> Yes, it is patches being patched.  OpenJDK comes with patches and some
> of them have to be patched (rather than the sources), because they are
> applied during the build phase, not at a point at which we could
> interject another phase.
>
> In the diff it's not very clear, but looking at the resulting phase
> after applying the patch you can see that there are only two substitute
> expressions for the following files, all patches:
>
>            "patches/jtreg-jrunscript.patch"
>            "patches/hotspot/hs23/drop_unlicensed_test.patch"
>            "patches/openjdk/6799141-split_out_versions.patch"

Yuk, OK.  Thanks for explaining.

>> Anyway, maybe “Move patching from ‘patch-paths’ to new ‘patch-patches’
>> phase.”
>
> Or maybe
>
>   "Move patching of patches from ‘patch-paths’ to new ‘patch-patches’
>    phase.",
>
> because it's not actually patching of sources but patching of patches?

OK!

Thank you,
Ludo'.