Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Dne neděle 22 Březen 2009 17:50:26 Alin Năstac napsal(a):
Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
versions than ${PV}.
Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
Cheers,
Alin
Hi,
I was working on patches glep [1] (nothing final and it is highly in progress
but as i can see more pple is interested so i am throwing it to the space so
there might be somebody else whom might help me with it).
I think the discussion made it clear that people want to do things differently
and there is no reason that we should not allow different teams to follow
different conventions.
Furthermore a lot of our patches are in the sed format and I happen to think
that's a good thing.
Unless your GLEP is prepared to handle these issues it seems completely useless
to me.
Marijn
- --
Gods do not want you to think, lest they lose existence.
Religions do not want you to think, lest they lose power.
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknIw14ACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xTIwCfVJG03ysDRv2iCOWY/F0RFCTA
jBcAn06ku3nBjK/LKdMlg8Jc+48Dh+RU
=VqBN
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: Furthermore a lot of our patches are in the sed format and I happen to think that's a good thing. My current view is that sed patches should only be used where static patches don't work, ignoring laziness (including mine) for the moment. Why do you feel sed patches are a good thing? Who but the ebuild writer would prefer that to patches? For instance isn't it much easier to share patches among distros than parts of very distro- specific scripts, ebuilds in our case? Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Furthermore a lot of our patches are in the sed format and I happen to think
that's a good thing.
My current view is that sed patches should only be used where
static patches don't work, ignoring laziness (including mine)
for the moment.
That's enough reason right there. But also, static patches are very often not
what I want and they would often break unnecessarily where a sed would not have.
Lastly I prefer to have the source changes right there in the ebuild when they
are not too elaborate and patches don't allow that.
Why do you feel sed patches are a good thing? Who but the ebuild
writer would prefer that to patches? For instance isn't it much
easier to share patches among distros than parts of very distro-
specific scripts, ebuilds in our case?
sed's can very easily be turned into patches when needed, so we don't lose
anything. Patches are context dependent and usually this is not why I need.
Usually I need to replace certain strings irrespective of how many or where they
are or their context and sed is the tool that does exactly this and is more
robust to changes in the source that don't matter.
Marijn
- --
Gods do not want you to think, lest they lose existence.
Religions do not want you to think, lest they lose power.
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknI1u4ACgkQp/VmCx0OL2yTzQCgtn3oWQihHbhWvr1/4a8MXncj
rgYAnih70WNPw5ErPKf9k7hn22DrUGbS
=RNV0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
Dne neděle 22 Březen 2009 17:50:26 Alin Năstac napsal(a):
Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
versions than ${PV}.
Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
Cheers,
Alin
Hi,
I was working on patches glep [1] (nothing final and it is highly in progress
but as i can see more pple is interested so i am throwing it to the space so
there might be somebody else whom might help me with it).
Please dont mind the warnings on the file, it is my first glep :] And if you
know how to fix them source is out there too [2]. ;]
[1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/patches-glep.html
[2] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/patches-glep.txt
Cheers,
Tomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
versions than ${PV}.
Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
Cheers,
Alin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:
Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
versions than ${PV}.
Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?
Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:
Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
versions than ${PV}.
Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?
Ulrich
Or just rename it ${PN}-bar.patch instead of ${P}-bar.patch if it is a
patch for more than one ebuild version.
But older ebuild has to be changed to make it works.
Mounir
Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
On Sunday 22 of March 2009 18:18:15 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:
Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
versions than ${PV}.
Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?
I guess it may be possible to drop P (or replace with PN) from patch file
names, to make it more obvious which patches should apply with which package
version.
Also, I'd like Tomáš Chvátal (scarabeus) to finally propose his GLEP or just
post it for discussion here as it's related to patch files management and
provides naming scheme - it would address this issue as well as separate
upstream patches from Gentoo specific ones in FILESDIR (and good thing is it's
backward compatible and it doesn't need any EAPI revbump that would inevitably
cause pointless discussion).
--
regards
MM
--
10% zysku na lokacie bankowej z gwarancja BFG. Sprawdz!
http://clk.tradedoubler.com/click?p=74281a=1586724g=17879004
Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Mounir Lamouri
mounir.lamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Or just rename it ${PN}-bar.patch instead of ${P}-bar.patch if it is a
patch for more than one ebuild version.
But older ebuild has to be changed to make it works.
The ${PV} in the patch name is a quick indication of the age of a
patch, the gnome herd especially *encourages* this behavior.
--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
Le 22/03/2009 19:22, Nirbheek Chauhan a écrit :
The ${PV} in the patch name is a quick indication of the age of a
patch, the gnome herd especially *encourages* this behavior.
What I used to do back when I was still bumping packages in the Gnome
Herd, I would version the patch, but I would use
${PN}-2.22-fix-foo.patch for patch names.
It feels like the best of both worlds to me :
- versionned patches (we know when we started shipping it)
- easy bumping (no need to edit the ebuild)
The only downside is that cleaning up takes a couple more seconds since
I have to check if patch 2.20 is used or not by packages 2.24...
But overall, it's bikeshedding. Git (or any other half decent SCM)
should be able to compress identical patches down to a single blob.
My 2¢
Rémi
Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alin Năstac wrote:
Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
versions than ${PV}.
Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
I opted to reply to your mail after reading all the other replies.
FWIW, I agree with you and have been doing that for desktop-effects and
KDE packages. Whenever we need to add a patch we do it as ${P}. If that
patch is not applied upstream and is needed for future versions, I
rename the patch to ${PN} to decouple it from a particular ${PV}.
Cheers,
Alin
- --
Regards,
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknG6MkACgkQcAWygvVEyAJQkQCfRaf8IsqB89+AoZUL77gPdynH
Y5QAoJEXoQoBELvvIbW1mEqzVl0R0Azx
=joA9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
