Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version in case of upstream patches from stable branch of development

[Petteri Räty]

On 08/03/2010 03:03 PM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> How should we version our packages in case we've backported upstream
> patches from stable branch of development?

PV reflects the status of upstream that we base the ebuild on (usually a
release) and then we apply individual reviewed patches on top of that in
Gentoo revisions.

> Bug 330667 requests _p or
> _pre. I feel that _p|_pre versions should be left for VCS (read
> development) versions of the package, while during backports we have the
> best version with all important upstream+gentoo fixes available to the
> moment and I'd better avoid to call it development.
>

If you read the bug you will see that our python has essentially been
development versions so _p is in line with what you say above.


> If we decide to go with _p or _pre could we agree on answers for the
> following questions:
>  - Does single patch from upstream's VCS justify _p$(date|rev) version?
> What if this is _the only_ patch in the upstream's VCS?

No if the patch is small and can be reasonably understood. If the patch
for example switches the used build system and I would think _p is
called for.

>  - Now what about two patches? Three? N? When does few patches became
> pile?

You should ask upstream to make a release when they start to pile up.

>  - What if I drop single patch from the upstream's patchset for stable
> branch, should we drop _pre _p version and add -rN?

_p reflects upstream situation so dropping a patch from that is a Gentoo
modification there so it would be _p12323-r1.

>  - What if there are two dependent patches, and first one fixes
> indentation? Should we spend time on backporting second patch (time
> consuming and error prone process) or use both and live closer to
> upstream?
>

I would leave this up to the maintainer. Depends on how much time
backporting takes.

Regards,
Petteri