1 |
Am Donnerstag, 14. August 2008 17:24:41 schrieb Santiago M. Mola: |
2 |
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
> > Patches in the metadata.xml should have some sort of status tracking for |
4 |
> > each patch, repoman should flag any that don't, and warn on any that have |
5 |
> > not been submitted upstream unless the status is signed off on by a herd |
6 |
> > leader (such as Gentoo specific patches). This would provide visual |
7 |
> > feedback for users and developers with regard to a pretty important |
8 |
> > metric on how successful Gentoo is at getting patches pushed back to |
9 |
> > developers. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> It was proposed recently to add some standarized headers to all new |
12 |
> patches for maintenance purposes. Something like: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Source: patch by John Foo, backported from upstream, whatever. |
15 |
> Upstream: In revision 245, rejected, foo. |
16 |
> Reason: Build system sucks |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I think that's all we need in order to know how were things when the |
19 |
> patch was added and if it needs to be pushed/tracked upstream, removed |
20 |
> in the next version of the package, etc. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Some of us already put these kind of headers, or at least an URL to |
23 |
> upstream bug or a meaningful source of info about the patch. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> However, tracking the status of every patch since its inclusion in |
26 |
> portage until it's removed would be a huge work overhead... and I |
27 |
> doubt it's worthy. |
28 |
|
29 |
i am using the lfs tool to create my patches: |
30 |
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/MAINTAINER/lfspatch |
31 |
|
32 |
it creates patches with patch version number: |
33 |
irtrans-irserver-5.11.08-arm_remotes-1.patch |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
and the header it creates looks like this: |
37 |
Submitted By: Mario Fetka (mario-fetka at gmx dot at) |
38 |
Date: 2008-07-18 |
39 |
Initial Package Version: 5.11.08 |
40 |
Origin: me |
41 |
Upstream Status: unknown |
42 |
Description: add back remotes and correct makefile arm dir location |
43 |
|
44 |
i think some rules for patches would be a good thing. |
45 |
i would also suggest naming rules for the patches |
46 |
|
47 |
Mario |