FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-07-2011, 12:05 PM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 03:27:15PM -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, yes, that parallel came up in my mind too, but really, the two
> > aren't particularly similar. I don't think there's any intent to
> > obfuscate in the case of the glibc spec, it's simply done the way that
> > seemed convenient to its maintainers at the time. Note the Fedora kernel
> > package is a normal source / split out patches set. I'm not sure that
> > whole kerfuffle is particularly relevant to Fedora.
> >
> >
> Let me turn that on its head.
>
> As more projects become git based over time, the preferred form for code
> development might actually be a bisectable git checkout and not broken out
> patchsets for some projects. I'm not sure the distribution and packaging
> model that we collectively understand now and which grew up in the cvs and
> svn dominated era fits really well in the git dominated era. I think we are
> still groping around trying to figure out what the "preferred form" really
> is in the git dominated era. I'm not sure the broken out patchset will be
> it. It might soon be considered a legacy format in some situations.

While I agree with you, the glibc "big blob of patch" approach
isn't in either of the preferred forms.

Wishlist item:

At the same time that RPM allows you to bundle a git repo, perhaps we
can finally get rid of %changelog?

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-07-2011, 01:49 PM
Martin Langhoff
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jef Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> As more projects become git based over time, the preferred form for code
> development might actually be a bisectable git checkout

+100 -- some of the git primitives seem to be here to stay - a hash
identifying a commit or tree as the key identity, plus repo url, and
optionally a branchname. You can see those 3 with minimal variation
across DSCMs.

Perhaps fedpkg could grow some tentacles to make it easy to replace
the source tarball with a reference to a commit hash, and perhaps to
point to a 2nd repo/branchname/hash where the "as patched in this
fedora rpm" branch is available. That commit being a direct descendant
of the "upstream commit".

If you define the config stanzas and internal API around those 2
triplets, I think you can start with git and then extend to the
relevant DSCMs .

This would make rebasing patchsets (dropping patches as upstream
merges or nixes them) -much- easier.

It would require a 2nd set of git repos, however, where fedora has
full clones of upstream's git repo with the fedora-specific branches.
Upstream projects may or may not welcome the fedora braches in their
repo... Fedora may want to keep more direct control over them re
commit access and direct manipulation (branch renames, etc).

Maybe that can be rolled into what's tracked in pkgs.fp.org, but the
size difference is... um... :-)



m
--
*martin.langhoff@gmail.com
*martin@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
*- ask interesting questions
*- don't get distracted with shiny stuff* - working code first
*- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-07-2011, 01:52 PM
Martin Langhoff
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> Wishlist item:
>
> At the same time that RPM allows you to bundle a git repo, perhaps we
> can finally get rid of %changelog?

I suspect that fedpkg is a better integration point. Between the
"fedora patches" branch discussed in my other post, and a git log of
the fedpkg repo, you can generate the changelog at srpm creation time.

cheers,



m
--
*martin.langhoff@gmail.com
*martin@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
*- ask interesting questions
*- don't get distracted with shiny stuff* - working code first
*- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-07-2011, 01:57 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 03:27:15PM -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, yes, that parallel came up in my mind too, but really, the two
>> > aren't particularly similar. I don't think there's any intent to
>> > obfuscate in the case of the glibc spec, it's simply done the way that
>> > seemed convenient to its maintainers at the time. Note the Fedora kernel
>> > package is a normal source / split out patches set. I'm not sure that
>> > whole kerfuffle is particularly relevant to Fedora.
>> >
>> >
>> *Let me turn that on its head.
>>
>> As more projects become git based over time, the preferred form for code
>> development might actually be a bisectable git checkout and not broken out
>> patchsets for some projects. I'm not sure the distribution and packaging
>> model that we collectively understand now and which grew up in the cvs and
>> svn dominated era fits really well in the git dominated era. *I think we are
>> still groping around trying to figure out what the "preferred form" really
>> is in the git dominated era. I'm not sure the broken out patchset will be
>> it. It might soon be considered a legacy format in some situations.
>
> While I agree with you, the glibc "big blob of patch" approach
> isn't in either of the preferred forms.
>
> Wishlist item:
>
> At the same time that RPM allows you to bundle a git repo, perhaps we
> can finally get rid of %changelog?

%changelog isn't for developers. It's for users to see what the
developers changed in the package.

josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-07-2011, 04:32 PM
Genes MailLists
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On 09/07/2011 09:57 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:


>
> %changelog isn't for developers. It's for users to see what the
> developers changed in the package.
>

Would a git-shortlog suffice for %changelog ? Assuming appropriate
comments are required for fedora's git repo.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-07-2011, 04:42 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Genes MailLists <lists@sapience.com> wrote:
> On 09/07/2011 09:57 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>
>>
>> %changelog isn't for developers. *It's for users to see what the
>> developers changed in the package.
>>
>
> *Would a git-shortlog suffice for %changelog ? Assuming appropriate
> comments are required for fedora's git repo.

No... users can access %changelog for the RPMs on their system via
rpm. Making them go to a git repository elsewhere to figure out what
changed isn't exactly friendly.

Unless of course you meant "have fedpkg automatically stick a
git-shortlog into the %changelog section of the spec file on commit"
or something. Then.. maybe.

And yes, this assumes in all cases that developers are actually
putting useful information in both %changelog and commit logs.

josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-07-2011, 04:59 PM
Genes MailLists
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On 09/07/2011 12:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

>

>
> Unless of course you meant "have fedpkg automatically stick a
> git-shortlog into the %changelog section of the spec file on commit"
> or something. Then.. maybe.

Yah I meant this one .. :-)

>
> And yes, this assumes in all cases that developers are actually
> putting useful information in both %changelog and commit logs.
>

Indeed ..

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-07-2011, 05:23 PM
David Cantrell
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On 09/07/2011 12:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Genes MailLists<lists@sapience.com> wrote:
>> On 09/07/2011 09:57 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> %changelog isn't for developers. It's for users to see what the
>>> developers changed in the package.
>>>
>>
>> Would a git-shortlog suffice for %changelog ? Assuming appropriate
>> comments are required for fedora's git repo.
>
> No... users can access %changelog for the RPMs on their system via
> rpm. Making them go to a git repository elsewhere to figure out what
> changed isn't exactly friendly.
>
> Unless of course you meant "have fedpkg automatically stick a
> git-shortlog into the %changelog section of the spec file on commit"
> or something. Then.. maybe.

The installer team has been doing this for anaconda for a while now.
The RPM changelog block is automatically generated for us when we make a
new release.

When we do a "make release", this script (among other things) is run:

http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=anaconda.git;a=blob_plain;f=scripts/makebumpver;hb=HEAD

And we have a commit log format we follow:

http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=anaconda.git;a=blob_plain;f=docs/commit-log.txt;hb=HEAD

It works well for us.

> And yes, this assumes in all cases that developers are actually
> putting useful information in both %changelog and commit logs.

--
David Cantrell <dcantrell@redhat.com>
Supervisor, Installer Engineering Team
Red Hat, Inc. | Westford, MA | EST5EDT
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org