Santiago M. Mola wrote: > I think that's all we need in order to know how were things when the > patch was added and if it needs to be pushed/tracked upstream, removed > in the next version of the package, etc. > > Some of us already put these kind of headers, or at least an URL to > upstream bug or a meaningful source of info about the patch.
A short description possibly including a reference to an upstream or Gentoo bugreport prefixed to every epatch call should be our minimum standard. Working on packages whose maintainers are MIA isn't always that simple - but it's even worse if you have to check a number of patches to find out what they are for, since when they are in and what their status is ... > However, tracking the status of every patch since its inclusion in > portage until it's removed would be a huge work overhead... and I > doubt it's worthy. I don't think it's a huge work overhead, it'll take an additional minute per included patch to include a minimal description into the ebuild(s) and use a standardized header for the patch. Compared to the time one needs to spend when searching for information on that patch somewhen later on it's worth every minute. Tobias
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
