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 > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-22-2009, 03:50 PM
Alin Năstac
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
versions than ${PV}.
Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?

Cheers,
Alin
 
Old 03-22-2009, 04:18 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

>>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:

> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> versions than ${PV}.
> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?

And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?

Ulrich
 
Old 03-22-2009, 05:13 PM
Maciej Mrozowski
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

On Sunday 22 of March 2009 18:18:15 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:
> > Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> > versions than ${PV}.
> > Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?

> And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?

I guess it may be possible to drop P (or replace with PN) from patch file
names, to make it more obvious which patches should apply with which package
version.

Also, I'd like Tomáš Chvátal (scarabeus) to finally propose his GLEP or just
post it for discussion here as it's related to patch files management and
provides naming scheme - it would address this issue as well as separate
upstream patches from Gentoo specific ones in FILESDIR (and good thing is it's
backward compatible and it doesn't need any EAPI revbump that would inevitably
cause pointless discussion).

--
regards
MM

----------------------------------------------------------------------
10% zysku na lokacie bankowej z gwarancja BFG. Sprawdz!
http://clk.tradedoubler.com/click?p=74281&a=1586724&g=17879004
 
Old 03-22-2009, 09:47 PM
Ryan Hill
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:50:26 +0100
Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> versions than ${PV}.
> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?

Um, why?

I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
FILESDIR.

--
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
 
Old 03-22-2009, 09:53 PM
Ryan Hill
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:24:26 -0400
Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:
> >
> >> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> >> versions than ${PV}.
> >> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
> >
> > And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?
> >
>
> Or just rename it ${PN}-bar.patch instead of ${P}-bar.patch if it is a
> patch for more than one ebuild version.

And when the patch has to be changed? ${PN}-foo-2.patch?

The PV in the patch name indicates what version the patch was made
for. This can be useful info, if just for judging how bad you are at
sending patches upstream.


--
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
 
Old 03-22-2009, 10:16 PM
Sebastian Pipping
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
>> versions than ${PV}.
>> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
>
> Um, why?
>
> I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
> FILESDIR.

Good point.



Sebastian
 
Old 03-22-2009, 11:08 PM
Rmi Cardona
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

Le 22/03/2009 19:22, Nirbheek Chauhan a crit :

The ${PV} in the patch name is a quick indication of the age of a
patch, the gnome herd especially *encourages* this behavior.


What I used to do back when I was still bumping packages in the Gnome
Herd, I would version the patch, but I would use
"${PN}-2.22-fix-foo.patch" for patch names.


It feels like the best of both worlds to me :
- versionned patches (we know when we started shipping it)
- easy bumping (no need to edit the ebuild)

The only downside is that cleaning up takes a couple more seconds since
I have to check if patch 2.20 is used or not by packages 2.24...


But overall, it's bikeshedding. Git (or any other half decent SCM)
should be able to compress identical patches down to a single blob.


My 2

Rmi
 
Old 03-22-2009, 11:19 PM
Alin Năstac
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

On 3/22/09 11:47 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:50:26 +0100
> Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
>> versions than ${PV}.
>> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
>>
>
> Um, why?
>
> I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
> FILESDIR.
>
>
Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
(foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).
 
Old 03-22-2009, 11:42 PM
Ryan Hill
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:19:26 +0100
Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
> you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
> (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).

No. It's done this way for a reason.

--
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
 
Old 03-22-2009, 11:44 PM
Jeremy Olexa
 
Default please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

Alin Năstac wrote:
<snip>

Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
(foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).



What exactly is your problem that you are trying to solve here? Posting
to the community to stop doing something without providing reasons to
stop is not going to go anywhere. I like having the PV in the patch
name..so, you haven't convinced me.


-Jeremy
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:52 PM.

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