From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:28:19 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] RFC: package patching In-Reply-To: <201111151914.38517.arnout@mind.be> References: <87k471n59k.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <201111151914.38517.arnout@mind.be> Message-ID: <20111115222819.4dd46e3b@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:14:38 +0000, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit : > > 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. I agree with both Thomas and Arnout. Thomas is right on the fact that we should clarify the patching logic in the package infrastructure, but this clarification should also come together with a clarification of the best practices for storing patches for packages. As Arnout suggests, I think that most packages should just have patches whose filename do not contain the version. Only packages that support multiple versions would have subdirectories. At the same time, we should also probably generalize the usage of patch numbering, in order to have a clear order of the patches. I.e, something such as: foobar-0001-something.patch foobar-0002-somethingelse.patch Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com