1 |
On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 06:27:59 +0100 |
2 |
"Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Tom Wijsman wrote: |
5 |
> > "Steven J. Long" wrote: |
6 |
> > > If it does [affect the build by default] then it should never be |
7 |
> > > applied, unless the user specifically asks for it, imo, and the |
8 |
> > > resultant kernel is labelled -exp as you suggest. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Yes, we are going to introduce an experimental USE flag for this. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> That's for the over-arching set of patches isn't it? Which takes care |
13 |
> of the labelling. |
14 |
|
15 |
Yes, we currently have "base" and "extras" tarballs for genpatches; it |
16 |
is trivial to add a "experimental" tarball to this set, all the |
17 |
optional experimental patches will be in that tarball. This is also |
18 |
handy for maintainers of other distros whom use genpatches. |
19 |
|
20 |
> > > > It's just a matter of embedding each + block in the diff with a |
21 |
> > > > config check and updating the counts. |
22 |
> .. |
23 |
> > > > I can convert the original developer's patch whenever he updates |
24 |
> > > > it; or on top of that, write a script to generate the original |
25 |
> > > > patch back. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> > > Please, just keep a copy of the original patch as well as the |
28 |
> > > modified output from the script, somewhere reasonable to you, if |
29 |
> > > you are doing any editing. Traceability is essential here. |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > But yes, some git branches can easily cover the editing part. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I think a lot of these things are checks that should happen before |
34 |
> patches are included, and on every upgrade. So we need to separate |
35 |
> out what the developer/ebuild-maintainer has to do to prepare files/, |
36 |
> and what needs to happen in the ebuild itself. |
37 |
|
38 |
Please note that this discussion is regarding genpatches; so, there is |
39 |
no files/ directory and the ebuild change is very minimal, changing one |
40 |
or two numbers to indicate the genpatches version to use. |
41 |
|
42 |
Every time I add a patch to genpatches I compile a test kernel using a |
43 |
test ebuild; I plan to add these checks to our genpatches scripts, then |
44 |
I can call the checks script from the ebuild in a QA way. |
45 |
|
46 |
> > > Unless of course the user specifically requests it. This can be a |
47 |
> > > simple variable with a list of required patches, or whatever. |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> > With USE=-experimental (which will be the default) they are |
50 |
> > excluded by default, after enabling that the user can exclude |
51 |
> > patches by setting UNIPATCH_EXCLUDE through the package.env |
52 |
> > mechanism. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> I'd feel happier if certain patches, the troublesome ones discussed, |
55 |
> had to be explicity enabled, before the configuration options and the |
56 |
> patch to kernel files took place. Perhaps via UNIPATCH_INCLUDE or |
57 |
> USE=aufs. |
58 |
|
59 |
There shouldn't be a problem here unless the user applies a lot of |
60 |
patches that could introduce a colliding patch; in this case the user |
61 |
either has to fix the conflicting patch or exclude ours. We can't know |
62 |
for ourselves which patches will be troublesome in this light; but |
63 |
well, I feel like this only happens on a very exceptional basis. If an |
64 |
user keeps this amount of patches, ours are probably not needed. |
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
With kind regards, |
68 |
|
69 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
70 |
Gentoo Developer |
71 |
|
72 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
73 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
74 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |