| 1 |
Andrew D Kirch a écrit : |
| 2 |
> Here's the script that I used to generate this. I have not manually |
| 3 |
> reviewed all of thousands of patches to determine the unique situation |
| 4 |
> of each patch, however I would like a suggestion on how to demonstrate |
| 5 |
> _real_ statistics short of auditing each and every patch in portage |
| 6 |
> which I personally don't have time to do. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Then how can you come to the conclusion that all the patches we carry |
| 9 |
are somehow bad? I won't reiterate what Robin and others have said about |
| 10 |
various upstreams, but this is a _reality_ we have to work with. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Now instead of doubting your stats once again, here's my suggestion : |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Pick a set of packages you like/use, contact its Gentoo maintainers and |
| 15 |
ask for more info about the patches we carry in Portage. Chances are, |
| 16 |
most patches will already be in upstream's BTS or mailing list's |
| 17 |
archives. But some patches may have been forgotten. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Saying we are doing an awful job because $nb_patches > 0 is *not* the |
| 20 |
way to get things moving in the right direction. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I for one, want to get $nb_patches closer to 0, but it's an ongoing |
| 23 |
process, not a goal. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And yes, there *will* have to be a review of all "epatch" and "sed" |
| 26 |
lines in all our ebuilds if we want to go in the right direction. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Cheers |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Rémi |
Archives