1 |
Tom Wijsman wrote: |
2 |
> "Steven J. Long" wrote: |
3 |
> > If it does [affect the build by default] then it should never be |
4 |
> > applied, unless the user specifically asks for it, imo, and the |
5 |
> > resultant kernel is labelled -exp as you suggest. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Yes, we are going to introduce an experimental USE flag for this. |
8 |
|
9 |
That's for the over-arching set of patches isn't it? Which takes care of |
10 |
the labelling. |
11 |
|
12 |
> > > It's just a matter of embedding each + block in the diff with a |
13 |
> > > config check and updating the counts. |
14 |
.. |
15 |
> > > I can convert the original developer's patch whenever he updates |
16 |
> > > it; or on top of that, write a script to generate the original |
17 |
> > > patch back. |
18 |
|
19 |
> > Please, just keep a copy of the original patch as well as the modified |
20 |
> > output from the script, somewhere reasonable to you, if you are doing |
21 |
> > any editing. Traceability is essential here. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> The need to keep duplicates around is a broken design; if you would |
24 |
> need to do this, there is something worse going on. |
25 |
|
26 |
There is indeed: there's major changes to other parts of the kernel tree, |
27 |
even when the patch's configuration options are set to off, as they are |
28 |
by default (or must be in the Gentoo experimental config patch.) That's |
29 |
the reason they were not accepted, as has been discussed earlier in the |
30 |
thread. |
31 |
|
32 |
> But yes, some git branches can easily cover the editing part. |
33 |
|
34 |
I think a lot of these things are checks that should happen before patches |
35 |
are included, and on every upgrade. So we need to separate out what the |
36 |
developer/ebuild-maintainer has to do to prepare files/, and what needs |
37 |
to happen in the ebuild itself. |
38 |
|
39 |
> > Personally I think it ill-advised, and would prefer simply that the |
40 |
> > patch were not applied if the above process in your testing prior to |
41 |
> > usage, showed that it would affect other parts of the build |
42 |
> > inappropriately, even when configured off. Or it's known to do so, |
43 |
> > like aufs. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Maybe, we can hear whether the patch authors want to do something about |
46 |
> this, so we don't have to convert patches like this; maybe most of them |
47 |
> are willing to do this without a problem. |
48 |
|
49 |
The conversation is definitely worth having. Especially if Gentoo runs |
50 |
automated tests on the patchsets to verify previously "safe" patches |
51 |
are still safe to apply unconditionally, ie that all changes are #ifdef |
52 |
or #if guarded. |
53 |
|
54 |
> Though, there are going to be |
55 |
> parts that they want to unconditionally apply, which is why we will |
56 |
> need to wrap those parts with a check. |
57 |
|
58 |
Indeed; upstream patch authors are not going to suddenly change, especially |
59 |
with the known-troublesome cases, while there is still the need to make |
60 |
the patches available to users who would otherwise be applying them |
61 |
without Gentoo -exp labelling. |
62 |
|
63 |
> > Unless of course the user specifically requests it. This can be a |
64 |
> > simple variable with a list of required patches, or whatever. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> With USE=-experimental (which will be the default) they are excluded by |
67 |
> default, after enabling that the user can exclude patches by setting |
68 |
> UNIPATCH_EXCLUDE through the package.env mechanism. |
69 |
|
70 |
I'd feel happier if certain patches, the troublesome ones discussed, had |
71 |
to be explicity enabled, before the configuration options and the patch |
72 |
to kernel files took place. Perhaps via UNIPATCH_INCLUDE or USE=aufs. |
73 |
|
74 |
Regards, |
75 |
steveL. |
76 |
-- |
77 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |