1 |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:19:25 Samuli Suominen wrote: |
3 |
>> On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote: |
4 |
>> > Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
>> >> I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves |
6 |
>> >> readability. Simple example: |
7 |
>> >> |
8 |
>> >> # bug #123456, foo, bar |
9 |
>> >> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch |
10 |
>> >> # bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah |
11 |
>> >> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-baz.patch |
12 |
>> >> |
13 |
>> >> With multiple arguments, you can't put comments in the middle. |
14 |
>> > |
15 |
>> > ++ It's also a lot easier to remove the single patches when they're no |
16 |
>> > longer needed. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> Removing an 'epatch foo' line is easier than 'foo \' ? You are kidding, |
19 |
>> right? |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> > In the context of configuring, building and installing a |
22 |
>> > package, the extra overhead is miniscule, whereas the above is *much* |
23 |
>> > easier to maintain. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Based on what argument? |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> Having the comments inside the patch allows everyone, including |
28 |
>> _upstreams_ straight up see what's it for and link to the bug it's |
29 |
>> coming from. Where as keeping them in ebuilds makes it Gentoo specific, |
30 |
>> which is not what we are about. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> i personally prefer: |
33 |
> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch #12345 |
34 |
> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-bar.patch #19512 #91991 |
35 |
> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-fatcow.patch #19291 |
36 |
> because i personally like to have just the bug number there |
37 |
> |
38 |
> i know other people prefer to pass these all on one line: |
39 |
> epatch \ |
40 |
> "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch \ |
41 |
> "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-bar.patch \ |
42 |
> "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-fatcow.patch |
43 |
|
44 |
The problem with the latter is the same problem I have w/python lists |
45 |
and commas. |
46 |
|
47 |
If I want to add a patch to the list I might forget to to add the \ |
48 |
|
49 |
epatch \ |
50 |
"${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch \ |
51 |
"${FILESDIR}"/${P}-last.patch # <-- Oops I forgot to add a \ here |
52 |
"${FILESDIR}"/${P}-my-new.patch |
53 |
|
54 |
Or I delete the last patch and forget to remove the \ |
55 |
|
56 |
epatch \ |
57 |
"${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch \ |
58 |
"${FILESDIR}"/${P}-bar.patch \ # <-- oops again! |
59 |
|
60 |
> |
61 |
> there is no standard here (i think they're more or less equally common) and |
62 |
> maintainers are free to pick what they like best. arguing about the merits |
63 |
> between the two above styles is a waste of everyone's time. go fix some bugs |
64 |
> instead you lazy wankers :P. |
65 |
|
66 |
I enjoy wasting time :) |
67 |
|
68 |
> |
69 |
> the one thing Samuli is correct about though and largely has nothing to do |
70 |
> with style is that the patch itself needs to have all the relevant |
71 |
> information. doing the following is wrong: |
72 |
> # here i explain what the patch is for #12351 |
73 |
> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-bar.patch |
74 |
> (and the bar patch contains only the diff) |
75 |
> |
76 |
> rather than rehash why you're wrong if you do the above, please read: |
77 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/clean-patches |
78 |
> -mike |
79 |
> |