From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael S. Zick Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:24:41 -0600 Subject: [Buildroot] RFC: package patching In-Reply-To: References: <20111117224211.0e793a0b@skate> Message-ID: <201111180624.43018.minimod@morethan.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Fri November 18 2011, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: > > Le Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:23:05 +0000, > > Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit : > > > >> ?With that in mind, I would propose a format like this for backport > >> patches: > >> > >> --from_-description-of-the-patch > > > > Having a comment inside a patch seems to be enough. Sometimes when the > > patch is pushed upstream, it's merged in the Git repo of the upstream > > project, but there isn't yet a release with the modification, so it > > would be hard to known which "nextversion" the patch will be in. > > > > We already have comments in patches, those comments can carry the > > upstream status of the patch, which is also compatible with what we > > intend to do with the send-patches.org project. > > > >> ?I think ThomasP meant that it is best to _remove_ the version numbers. > >> A version bumper will most likely try to take along all patches anyway, so > >> putting a version number is just increasing the diffstat. ?Without version > >> numbers, the diffstat will show much better which patches could be > >> removed, which ones were added and which ones needed to be modified. > > > > Agreed. > > Ok, so an attempt to summarize the discussion so far: > > - most patches should live in package/foo and have a filename of the form: > --.patch > > - for packages that have multiple versions at once in buildroot, > patches go into package/foo/foo-version, but have the same filename: > --.patch > > - support for --.patch is removed, and all > existing such patches are renamed/moved according to the rules above. > > > Some remaining questions: > * what if a package has multiple versions, and a certain patch applies > to both versions. Should there be one copy of the patch in > package/foo, or should the patch be duplicated in > package/foo/foo-version1 and package/foo/foo-version2 ? > Patch should be duplicated, because name will now contain the sequence number and although the patch contents would be duplicated, the order of application might not be. Mike > * how many digits should the sequence number have? I now that > git-format-patch uses 4 digits (0001) but really isn't necessary for > buildroot since the number of patches we'll have for each package is > limited. A package with 99 patches would already be extraneous, so I'd > say 01 (2 digits) is enough. > This may seem like a detail, but discussing this should keep things > consistent throughout the future. > > Thanks, > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot > >