On 23-03-2009 11:41:08 +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> People split into three groups:
>
> - Friends of ${P}-fix-issue.patch naming
> - Friends of ${PN}-fix-issue.patch naming
> - Friends of ${PN}-1.2.3-fix-issue.patch naming
>
> Qualities

[snip]

I think what's missing is the following observation:

${PN}-fix-issue.patch naming is bad if you patch code that is (likely)
to change in newer releases. This is almost always the case. Ultimate
example, patch something in ffmpeg or mplayer, and the next snapshot
will break the patch. (i.e. doesn't apply any more.) Using
${PN}-fix-issue.patch in this case gets you into
${PN}-fix-issue-2.patch, which IMO is ugly.

If patches are named this way, they probably fall in the case where the
code it patches is unlikely to change. (assumption)

> Possible solutions
>
> - *Communicating* your likes to all co-maintainers
> in hope the will respect and remember your agreement
>
> - Add a related local comment (*documenting*) to ebuilds
> and expect other developers to act accordingly on a bump

probably best solution

> - Making a GLEP *enforcing* on of these and make people
> vote on which

very bad one.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Fabian Groffen wrote:
> I think what's missing is the following observation:
>
> ${PN}-fix-issue.patch naming is bad if you patch code that is (likely)
> to change in newer releases. This is almost always the case. Ultimate
> example, patch something in ffmpeg or mplayer, and the next snapshot
> will break the patch. (i.e. doesn't apply any more.) Using
> ${PN}-fix-issue.patch in this case gets you into
> ${PN}-fix-issue-2.patch, which IMO is ugly.
>
> If patches are named this way, they probably fall in the case where the
> code it patches is unlikely to change. (assumption)

Good point. In that case the patch "revision" 2 in
"${PN}-fix-issue-2.patch" actually stands for
"${PN}-fix-issue-1.2.4.patch" where "1.2.4" is the
version of the new package. Therefor we effectively
${PV} from the begining to the end.

So a conlusion from this would be that ${PN} is not
suited for all ebuilds and therefore should not be
standard alone if at all?



Sebastian