Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On May 15, Daniel Goller [dgoller AT satx.rr.com] wrote:
>  using sequence numbers would allow us to do autopatching with proper
>  ordering while adhering to KISS or the 90/10 rule, cover 90% of the
>  cases with 10% effort, while setting something up with dependencies
>  might cover the additional 10% of cases it would also require the extra
>  90% of effort
>  SMGL does not seem to do a lot of patching, so in reality using sequence
>  numbers might cover far more than the hypothetical 90% :)
>  
>  using sequence numbers it would be as easy as a for loop over patches/
>  in default_pre_build

It depends on the type of patches.  For stuff we're applying to make things
build or apply security updates, we're always going to apply them and just
need to do them in the right order so we don't have unexpected conflicts.

In the case of optional feature patches the users may or may not apply,
having simple ordering is more complex since the actual content of the
patch may vary based on what other patches were or were not applied first.

I know I started out with sequence numbers for the mutt patches and dropped
them for this and other reasons... I think the main reason was it becomes a
pain to keep renaming patches all the time because new ones are added or
removed.  You can avoid this with a sufficiently large number of digits but
I think what mutt ended up with is a good bit simpler while still
accounting for the various use cases.

But again, it depends on which kind of patches we're talking about.
Feature patches and bug/security patches are really not the same thing.

Attachment: pgp7qSMum1cYn.pgp
Description: PGP signature