On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:51:28 +0100
Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 

Thanks for this.  And apologies to Alin.  I was in a very bad mood
yesterday.


-- 
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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to