Re: [gentoo-dev] The Plethora of Patches

[Mario Fetka]

Am Donnerstag, 14. August 2008 17:24:41 schrieb Santiago M. Mola:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net> wrote:
> > Patches in the metadata.xml should have some sort of status tracking for
> > each patch, repoman should flag any that don't, and warn on any that have
> > not been submitted upstream unless the status is signed off on by a herd
> > leader (such as Gentoo specific patches). This would provide visual
> > feedback for users and developers with regard to a pretty important
> > metric on how successful Gentoo is at getting patches pushed back to
> > developers.
>
> It was proposed recently to add some standarized headers to all new
> patches for maintenance purposes. Something like:
>
> Source: patch by John Foo, backported from upstream, whatever.
> Upstream: In revision 245, rejected, foo.
> Reason: Build system sucks
>
> I think that's all we need in order to know how were things when the
> patch was added and if it needs to be pushed/tracked upstream, removed
> in the next version of the package, etc.
>
> Some of us already put these kind of headers, or at least an URL to
> upstream bug or a meaningful source of info about the patch.
>
> However, tracking the status of every patch since its inclusion in
> portage until it's removed would be a huge work overhead... and I
> doubt it's worthy.

i am using the lfs tool to create my patches:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/MAINTAINER/lfspatch

it creates patches with patch version number:
irtrans-irserver-5.11.08-arm_remotes-1.patch


and the header it creates looks like this:
Submitted By: Mario Fetka (mario-fetka at gmx dot at) 
Date: 2008-07-18 
Initial Package Version: 5.11.08 
Origin: me 
Upstream Status: unknown 
Description: add back remotes and correct makefile arm dir location

i think some rules for patches would be a good thing.
i would also suggest naming rules for the patches 

Mario