Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

2009-03-23 Thread Alin Năstac
On 3/23/09 1:42 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
 On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:19:26 +0100
 Alin Năstac mrn...@gentoo.org wrote:

   
 Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
 you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
 (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).
 

 No.  It's done this way for a reason.

   
I saw your reason about wanting to know the package version for which
the patch was created and I cannot see any reason for knowing that other
than submitting the patch to upstream.
Somehow I doubt upstream is interested in patches for version x.y.1 when
the current version is x.y.10.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

2009-03-23 Thread Alin Năstac
On 3/23/09 1:44 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
 Alin Năstac wrote:
 snip
 Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
 you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
 (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).


 What exactly is your problem that you are trying to solve here?
 Posting to the community to stop doing something without providing
 reasons to stop is not going to go anywhere. I like having the PV in
 the patch name..so, you haven't convinced me.

IMO prefixing a patch name with $P creates the perception that the patch
is used only from ebuild version $PV. Apparently we do not agree on this
so there is not much more I can tell to convince others.

I suppose what everyone does in their part of the tree is their
business, but a small subset of packages I maintain have other
maintainers as well. It is annoying to see rules you assume being
respected on your ebuilds being broken at every bump made by others.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

2009-03-23 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Ryan Hill wrote:
 Alin Năstac mrn...@gentoo.org wrote:
 
 I suppose what everyone does in their part of the tree is their
 business, but a small subset of packages I maintain have other
 maintainers as well. It is annoying to see rules you assume being
 respected on your ebuilds being broken at every bump made by others.
 
 I'm sure they're just as annoyed by your bizarre take on patch version
 numbering as you are with theirs. ;)

Let me try summarizing and dissecting this issue.
Please correct and extend where necessary.


Bike shedding versus real issue

  - Issue itself might not be earth-shaking

  - Repeated frustration can become a problem

  - Frustration with this is present (me included)

  - Happy developers stay much longer


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

  - ${P} i.e. ${PN}-${PV}
- On version bump either ..
  - Constant on version bump
  - Several same-content patch files across ebuilds
- .. or ..
  - Change to ${PN}-pre-bump-version
  - Single patch file across ebuilds
- Maybe helps reminding most patches should
  move from downstream to upstream?
- 1:1 patch-ebuild relation (see below)

  - ${PN}
- Constant on version bump
- Single patch file across ebuilds
- Several ebuilds need to be inspected
  to find out if a patch file is still used
- 1:1 patch-ebuild relation (see below)

  - ${PN}-1.2.3
- Constant on version bump
- Single patch file across ebuilds
- Several ebuilds need to be inspected
  to find out if a patch file is still used
- =${PV} values indicate things: either
  - the patch is downstream only
  - upstream has not applied it
- 1:n patch-ebuild relation
  (inverse qualities of 1:1 patch-ebuild
  relation, see below)


  - 1:1 patch-ebuild relation
- Finding out if a patch is still needed
  is trivial
- In-place patch updates possible without
  affecting other ebuilds
- 1:1 benefits only apply if ${P} is used
  consistently in the whole tree


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

  - Making a GLEP *enforcing* on of these and make people
vote on which



Sebastian



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

2009-03-23 Thread Fabian Groffen
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.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

2009-03-23 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Fabian Groffen wrote:
 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)

Good point.  In that case the patch revision 2 in
${PN}-fix-issue-2.patch actually stands for
${PN}-fix-issue-1.2.4.patch where 1.2.4 is the
version of the new package.  Therefor we effectively
${PV} from the begining to the end.

So a conlusion from this would be that ${PN} is not
suited for all ebuilds and therefore should not be
standard alone if at all?



Sebastian



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

2009-03-22 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Ryan Hill 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?
 
 Um, why?
 
 I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
 FILESDIR.

Good point.



Sebastian



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

2009-03-22 Thread Alin Năstac
On 3/22/09 11:47 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
 On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:50:26 +0100
 Alin Năstac mrn...@gentoo.org 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?
 

 Um, why?

 I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
 FILESDIR.

   
Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
(foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

2009-03-22 Thread Jeremy Olexa

Alin Năstac wrote:
snip

Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
(foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).



What exactly is your problem that you are trying to solve here? Posting 
to the community to stop doing something without providing reasons to 
stop is not going to go anywhere. I like having the PV in the patch 
name..so, you haven't convinced me.


-Jeremy