Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Arch-specific patches
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:49:34
Message-Id: 20031211014932.GC2313@time
1 On a similar topic to the -fPIC question, I've realized today that
3 if use alpha; then
4 epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-alpha.patch || die "epatch failed"
5 fi
7 is really the wrong thing (and I'm not talking about the die part, which
8 I know is controversial). I'm talking about the conditional application
9 of the patch.
11 I think this should really be:
13 # Patch for 64-bit but apply everywhere
14 epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-alpha.patch || die "epatch failed"
16 The reason is twofold:
18 1. Devs presently break packages by bumping the version without
19 reworking the patch. But they don't KNOW they broke the package
20 because they're working on a different architecture.
21 Consequently, the arch teams get a bug report that just ends up
22 being busy-work.
24 2. We shouldn't be applying patches that are only "safe" for one
25 architecture. If possible (and I know this is a little more
26 work), we should be writing patches that correct the problem
27 without hurting other arches. This practice would give us an
28 easier time pushing patches upstream.
30 So what happens if a dev bumps the version on a package, and the patch
31 no longer applies? Here's what I think:
33 1. The dev should attempt to rework the patch, or determine if it
34 can be removed.
36 2. If it's too involved, then the dev should remove the arch or
37 ~arch keyword from the ebuild, comment out the patch, and send
38 email to the appropriate arch team. That keeps users from
39 attempting to update their systems only to have emerge fail in
40 the middle for their arch. Better to have the devs handle the
41 problem than push it on to the users.
43 Does this make sense to everybody? I'm pushing for this approach
44 because our current situation truly has a scalability problem. We have
45 more devs available for working on packages than we have for working on
46 alternative architectures (where alternative means non-x86). It's
47 really important that devs responsible for packages attempt to keep
48 their ebuilds cross-platform friendly and not rely on the arch teams to
49 come along and clean up afterward.
51 I'm not suggesting that anybody has been careless, but I am suggesting a
52 change in perspective on Gentoo's multi-arch support...
54 Thoughts?
56 Aron
58 --
59 Aron Griffis
60 Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
61 Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76 FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch-specific patches Seemant Kulleen <seemant@g.o>