Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Daniel Goller <dgoller AT satx.rr.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daniel Goller wrote:
> Flavien Bridault wrote:
>>> Le lundi 15 mai 2006 à 15:38 +0200, Andraž "ruskie" Levstik a écrit :
>>>> With my recent work on smgb and smbsd I've found that we have a rather
>>>> incosistent way of handling patches so I was doing some brainstorming on 
>>>> the
>>>> issue(with input from others) and this is what I came up with:
>>>>
>>>> * a directory patches in the spell dir would hold ALL the patches
>>>> * a format for patch filenames would be defined
>>>>   an example: 001-2-mypatch.diff
>>>>   arbitrary:  SEQ-P-NAME.diff
>>>>   SEQ: sequential number from 000-999
>>>>   P: patchlevel
>>>>   NAME: a name for the patch
>>>>   That's for the filename
>>>> * Comments in patches should be defined
>>>>   an example:
>>>>      ***START OF DIFF FILE***
>>>>      ## Description: What does this patch do
>>>>      ## BugUrl: Url to the upstream filed bug about the patch
>>>>      ## Type: [enh|fix|sec|other]
>>>>      THE_PATCH
>>>>      ***END OF DIFF FILE***
>>> Is BugUrl really necessary ? I often make patch by myself when I upgrade
>>> a spell, filling a bug for this is an extra work. Unless this might be
>>> useful to future integration in stable/stable-rc ?
>>> Could also this url points to an another bug managers than our bugzilla,
>>> I mean those from other distros or projects ?
>>>
>>> I would also propose to add the author of the patch. That could be
>>> useful to give some credits to people who create patch, gurus, our
>>> users, apprentices or developers from other projects ?
>>>
> 
> patches if filed upstream helps for bugs to not come back, so while
> being extra work short term, it might pay back in the long run
> 
> if we borrow a patch from glibc bugzilla it would seem logical to
> provide that url there, which would probably also explain the reason for
> the patch better than any short reason we can put
> 
>>>> * If possible ALL patches should be applied in PRE_BUILD
>>>> * Sequential numbers have meaning:
>>>>   Patches that should be applied in PRE_BUILD go from 001 to 899
>>>>   Patches that can't be applied in PRE_BUILD go from 900 to 999
>>>>   000 is reserved for now
>>>>   Other ranges might be added as well I doubt we will ever have 1000 
>>>> patches
>>>>   in a spell
>>>> * Final evolution of this would be automatic patching in PRE_BUILD using
>>>>   default_pre_build
>>> I love this last proposal ;-) Adding PRE_BUILD files only to apply a
>>> patch is quite annoying imho, and I think that's why we often find those
>>> applying in BUILD which is not correct according to our handbook iirc.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SM-Discuss mailing list
>>> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEaQf++HaycIPdpbkRApzfAJ9yOZR4QkkUNXNDHGVCUa/143dxpQCfT0uh
Rwl6Tj18gYxyoXRkoDBZ99U=
=zHV0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----