From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:03:06 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] RFC: package patching In-Reply-To: References: <87k471n59k.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <201111151914.38517.arnout@mind.be> <20111115222819.4dd46e3b@skate> Message-ID: <20111116190306.6e9596a0@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Wed, 16 Nov 2011 07:44:54 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire a ?crit : > > 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. > > I'm not sure if this is so black-and-white. If a patch backports a > change from 1.2.3 to 1.2.2, then IMO the patch should really be named > 1.2.2, even if only 1.2.2 is present in Buildroot. If it is named > without version, then it will also be taken along when bumping the > package (and possibly but not necessarily cause a patch conflict). > Only in cases were the change made by the patch is generic and not > intended for a specific version, should we remove the version from the > patch name. A generic patch doesn't exist, a patch is *always* for a specific version of a source tree. The fact that it might apply on multiple versions of a given package is just pure luck. Therefore, I don't see where the distinction between "generic patch" and a "version-specific" patch is. Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com