From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:14:38 +0000 Subject: [Buildroot] RFC: package patching In-Reply-To: <87k471n59k.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> References: <87k471n59k.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <201111151914.38517.arnout@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Tuesday 15 November 2011 08:45:11 Peter Korsgaard wrote: > >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas De Schampheleire writes: > Hi, > > Thomas> I think we should try and improve this. > > Thomas> A first approach could be to simply remove support for > Thomas> foo-1.2.3-something.patch, and require version-specific patches to > be Thomas> in a versioned subdirectory, package/foo/foo-1.2.3. For this, > we Thomas> should remove line 02-04. In this case, common patches are > applied Thomas> first, followed by versioned patches in subdirectories. > > Yes, I know - We hit this with E.G. busybox in the past. I would go for > the versioned-patches-in-subdir, as we (luckily) only support multiple > versions for a limited number of packages. While we're at it, I would also make it policy to not include the version number in the patch, except for packages with multiple active versions. Now, when you're upgrading a package, you also have to do a lot of renames of patches. Note that this fix will require renames of rougly 300 files... Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286540 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 31BB CF53 8660 6F88 345D 54CC A836 5879 20D7 CF43