1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%2026/01/2011%20meeting&In-Reply-To=%3CAANLkTimKi%2B_pr5ae6T%3DZv7ghjtQLuYGTpQZ41j86KKzu%40mail.gmail.com%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="002506.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="002507.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting</H1>
<B>Ahmad Samir</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%2026/01/2011%20meeting&In-Reply-To=%3CAANLkTimKi%2B_pr5ae6T%3DZv7ghjtQLuYGTpQZ41j86KKzu%40mail.gmail.com%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting">ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Wed Feb 9 17:35:45 CET 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="002506.html">[Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="002507.html">[Mageia-dev] Buildsystem temporarly stopped
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#2511">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#2511">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#2511">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#2511">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>On 9 February 2011 11:27, Michael scherer <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">misc at zarb.org</A>> wrote:
><i> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:22:59AM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote:
</I>>><i> On 8 February 2011 08:21, Cazzaniga Sandro <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">cazzaniga.sandro at gmail.com</A>> wrote:
</I>>><i> > Le 07/02/2011 22:11, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
</I>>><i> >>
</I>>><i> >> Personally, as I said before about upstreaming patches, I don't think
</I>>><i> >> I have enough experience to judge if a patch should go upstream or
</I>>><i> >> not, so that part I can't do.
</I>>><i> >>
</I>>><i> >> What do you mean by "commented"?
</I>>><i> >
</I>>><i> > A thing like:
</I>>><i> >
</I>>><i> > #patch from .... to fix truc
</I>>><i> > Patch0: glibc-2.12-truc.fix.patch
</I>>><i> >
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> That's usually available in the svn log, whoever wrote the patch
</I>>><i> should have commented it if that is the policy, however I am not aware
</I>>><i> that such a policy exists (IMBW though).
</I>><i>
</I>><i> There is no specific policy despites the matter being discussed some time
</I>><i> ago, but to me, this is the only way to know what was send upstream
</I>><i> and what wasn't.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> It is ok if someone is not sure to send upstream or not,
</I>><i> but we cannot know if this is not written. And searching the svn log is tedious,
</I>><i> people usually say "add patch to fix stuff", without giving the name. And you
</I>><i> have to search for every patch, and nobody ever say what is the upstream
</I>><i> status of the patch.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> So writing in the spec, just before the patch what it does, if it was sent
</I>><i> upstream, and where ( or why it shouldn't ) allow to quickly see the status.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> For example, I found while cleaning newt that some patches where never send
</I>><i> to developpers ( and so I did ), that 2 patchs were wrong.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> So we cannot assumed that it was send back, even when we take the file from another
</I>><i> distribution.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I started working on a prototype of a web interface to manage this ( called ghostwheel ),
</I>><i> but it requires some functions on sophie to work ( and didn't had time to code them ).
</I>><i> ( a django web application, so far it does nothing except declaring a db and having a
</I>><i> cool name ).
</I>><i>
</I>><i> If we do not comment and send upstream, we will end up with rpm like gdb :
</I>><i>
</I>><i> When you look at it ( <A HREF="http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/gdb/current/SPECS/gdb.spec?revision=21081&view=markup">http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/gdb/current/SPECS/gdb.spec?revision=21081&view=markup</A> ),
</I>><i> the patch 320 ( and others ) that seems to come from gdb 6.5, you see there is something fishy
</I>><i> since we are now running gdb 7.1. Some seems to be linked to bugzilla ( no mention of the url
</I>><i> of the bz ), but does it mean they were sent uptream or not ?
</I>><i> The various format-security patches, etc, should also be commented
</I>><i> and send upstream. The patches about IA64 should maybe have been cleaned, etc.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Ask teuf why it took so long to upgrade gdb :)
</I>><i> --
</I>><i> Michael Scherer
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>
I agree it's good practice to comment on patches in the spec. But if
you expect me to trudge through the svn log of each package I
import/imported to see why a patch was added and add a comment in the
spec then I won't import any packages.
I am not going to correct a behaviour that was in effect for years as
"it's not my fault to begin with"... :)
--
Ahmad Samir
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="002506.html">[Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="002507.html">[Mageia-dev] Buildsystem temporarly stopped
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#2511">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#2511">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#2511">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#2511">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
