From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:41:12 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] RFC: package patching In-Reply-To: References: <87k471n59k.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <201111151914.38517.arnout@mind.be> <20111115222819.4dd46e3b@skate> <20111116190306.6e9596a0@skate> Message-ID: <20111118174112.08e536cd@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:05:47 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire a ?crit : > Although you are right that there is no such thing as a generic patch, > I still feel there is a conceptual difference between: > * modifications intended for all versions of a package, for example > modifications that we know will never go upstream because they are > buildroot-specific, and > * modifications which are intended for a specific version, for example > a backport of a change that was already fixed in a later version. I get your point. > To remove our reliance on 'luck', I agree it may be best to add > version numbers to either type of patch. If a package has multiple > versions, the patch may simply be duplicated with separate version > numbers. > > But, should we mark the difference between such patches in a > different way? Yes, through comments in the respective patch descriptions. Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com