View Single Post
Old 01-05-2015, 07:42 AM   #7
frostschutz
Linux User
frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frostschutz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
frostschutz's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,282
Karma: 6123806
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Device: none
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffR View Post
Maybe an all-or-nothing option would be useful
It already treats each individual patch file as all-or-nothing; so if one patch depends on another patch, they should be in the same file; whereas independent patches can be split into separate files.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffR View Post
The idea should be workable for some patches that only modify data, but not for many of the ones that modify code, as often the code changes depending on its position relative to other code or data.
Of course, in an all-or-nothing mode, the idea of making at least some of the patches version-independent, is kind of useless. A single address patch (or single change to a patched string) would then block all others.

I'll put your updated patch32lsb in the next beta, I'll also try to get the USB hook in place for that one.
frostschutz is offline   Reply With Quote