From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo Zacarias Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 03:07:13 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] busybox: rename patches as per the new standard and update 1.21.0 mdev In-Reply-To: <87bo94divm.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <1366723305-14386-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <8761zde433.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <5176F8B6.8020204@mind.be> <87bo94divm.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <51777691.2020702@zacarias.com.ar> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 04/23/2013 06:42 PM, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > Arnout> Actually, if upstream has the patches available for download, > Arnout> they should be downloaded instead of of included in buildroot, > Arnout> no? > > True. For busybox our patch download infrastructure unfortunately > doesn't work as the patches aren't located in the same directory as the > tarball (and the fact that we support multiple versions also makes it a > bit more complicated). The problem with downloading busybox patches directly is that upstream kind of sucks regarding naming and updates. For instance the mdev patch changed without being reflected in the filename, and so did other patches in the past. This could cause unexpected behaviour depending on which patch each user got, specially when they're being early adopters of new versions and using a common download directory. Telling people to "remove your patches to force a new download and try again" would just be adding unnecessary noise/bugs. Regards.