| 1 |
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:45:55 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > Earlier I mentioned "3) The patch should not affect the build by |
| 6 |
> > > > default."; if it does, we have to adjust it to not do that, |
| 7 |
> > > > this is something that can be easily scripted. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If it does then it should never be applied, unless the user |
| 10 |
> specifically asks for it, imo, and the resultant kernel is labelled |
| 11 |
> -exp as you suggest. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yes, we are going to introduce an experimental USE flag for this. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > It's just a matter of |
| 16 |
> > > > embedding each + block in the diff with a config check and |
| 17 |
> > > > updating the counts. |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > Wonderful, now you are maintaining a patch that looks nothing |
| 20 |
> > > like the one created by the original developers, nor tested by |
| 21 |
> > > anyone else other than gentoo developers. |
| 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 modified |
| 28 |
> output from the script, somewhere reasonable to you, if you are doing |
| 29 |
> any editing. Traceability is essential here. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The need to keep duplicates around is a broken design; if you would |
| 32 |
need to do this, there is something worse going on. But yes, some git |
| 33 |
branches can easily cover the editing part. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> Personally I think it ill-advised, and would prefer simply that the |
| 36 |
> patch were not applied if the above process in your testing prior to |
| 37 |
> usage, showed that it would affect other parts of the build |
| 38 |
> inappropriately, even when configured off. Or it's known to do so, |
| 39 |
> like aufs. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Maybe, we can hear whether the patch authors want to do something about |
| 42 |
this, so we don't have to convert patches like this; maybe most of them |
| 43 |
are willing to do this without a problem. Though, there are going to be |
| 44 |
parts that they want to unconditionally apply, which is why we will |
| 45 |
need to wrap those parts with a check. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> Unless of course the user specifically requests it. This can be a |
| 48 |
> simple variable with a list of required patches, or whatever. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
With USE=-experimental (which will be the default) they are excluded by |
| 51 |
default, after enabling that the user can exclude patches by setting |
| 52 |
UNIPATCH_EXCLUDE through the package.env mechanism. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
With kind regards, |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 58 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 61 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 62 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives