[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 17:26 Sat 29 Mar     , Mike Frysinger (vapier) wrote:
> 1.1                  sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild
> 
> file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup
> plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain

> 	local check base=${PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT}/etc/portage/patches
> 	for check in {${CATEGORY}/${PF},${CATEGORY}/${P},${CATEGORY}/${PN}}; do
> 		EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CTARGET}/${check}
> 		[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CHOST}/${check}
> 		[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${check}
> 		if [[ -d ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] ; then
> 			EPATCH_SUFFIX="patch"
> 			EPATCH_FORCE="yes" \
> 			EPATCH_MULTI_MSG="Applying user patches from ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ..." \
> 			epatch
> 			break
> 		fi
> 	done

This looks like it should be generic code somewhere else.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]

On Sunday 30 March 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 17:26 Sat 29 Mar     , Mike Frysinger (vapier) wrote:
> > 1.1                  sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild
> >
> > file :
> > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iproute
> >2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup plain:
> > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iproute
> >2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
> >
> > 	local check base=${PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT}/etc/portage/patches
> > 	for check in {${CATEGORY}/${PF},${CATEGORY}/${P},${CATEGORY}/${PN}}; do
> > 		EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CTARGET}/${check}
> > 		[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CHOST}/${check}
> > 		[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${check}
> > 		if [[ -d ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] ; then
> > 			EPATCH_SUFFIX="patch"
> > 			EPATCH_FORCE="yes" \
> > 			EPATCH_MULTI_MSG="Applying user patches from ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ..." \
> > 			epatch
> > 			break
> > 		fi
> > 	done
>
> This looks like it should be generic code somewhere else.

yes, i just havent gotten around to it
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2063 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> said:
> On 17:26 Sat 29 Mar     , Mike Frysinger (vapier) wrote:
> > 1.1                  sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild
> > 
> > file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup
> > plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
> 
> > 	local check base=${PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT}/etc/portage/patches
> > 	for check in {${CATEGORY}/${PF},${CATEGORY}/${P},${CATEGORY}/${PN}}; do
> > 		EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CTARGET}/${check}
> > 		[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CHOST}/${check}
> > 		[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${check}
> > 		if [[ -d ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] ; then
> > 			EPATCH_SUFFIX="patch"
> > 			EPATCH_FORCE="yes" \
> > 			EPATCH_MULTI_MSG="Applying user patches from ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ..." \
> > 			epatch
> > 			break
> > 		fi
> > 	done
> 
> This looks like it should be generic code somewhere else.

Actually, I'd say this should just be removed.  If a user wants to apply
a patch, they can put their own ebuild into an overlay and do it
themselves (presumably if they want to patch something, they'll know how
to make the simple modifications to an ebuild).  By allowing the user to
arbitrarily patch something means we have no idea what the user has
built and is filing a bug about.  If they installed an ebuild from an
overlay it is a lot easier to identify what they built.  Sure, they
could patch the ebuild in their tree, but by supporting user supplied
patches easily in this way, we are encouraging them to patch things
without our knowledge.  If we start supporting this across the board, I
can see bugs being filed when their patches break and they don't
understand what is happening.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2192 bytes --]

On Sunday 30 March 2008, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> said:
> > On 17:26 Sat 29 Mar     , Mike Frysinger (vapier) wrote:
> > > 1.1                  sys-apps/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild
> > >
> > > file :
> > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iprou
> > >te2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup plain:
> > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/iproute2/iprou
> > >te2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
> > >
> > > 	local check base=${PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT}/etc/portage/patches
> > > 	for check in {${CATEGORY}/${PF},${CATEGORY}/${P},${CATEGORY}/${PN}};
> > > do EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CTARGET}/${check}
> > > 		[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${CHOST}/${check}
> > > 		[[ -r ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] || EPATCH_SOURCE=${base}/${check}
> > > 		if [[ -d ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ]] ; then
> > > 			EPATCH_SUFFIX="patch"
> > > 			EPATCH_FORCE="yes" \
> > > 			EPATCH_MULTI_MSG="Applying user patches from ${EPATCH_SOURCE} ..." \
> > > 			epatch
> > > 			break
> > > 		fi
> > > 	done
> >
> > This looks like it should be generic code somewhere else.
>
> Actually, I'd say this should just be removed.  If a user wants to apply
> a patch, they can put their own ebuild into an overlay and do it
> themselves (presumably if they want to patch something, they'll know how
> to make the simple modifications to an ebuild).  By allowing the user to
> arbitrarily patch something means we have no idea what the user has
> built and is filing a bug about.  If they installed an ebuild from an
> overlay it is a lot easier to identify what they built.  Sure, they
> could patch the ebuild in their tree, but by supporting user supplied
> patches easily in this way, we are encouraging them to patch things
> without our knowledge.  If we start supporting this across the board, I
> can see bugs being filed when their patches break and they don't
> understand what is happening.

that's actually exactly what i'm encouraging.  i'm not worried about such 
issues as they're easily resolved by people posting the full build log.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1792 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> On Sunday 30 March 2008, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Actually, I'd say this should just be removed.  If a user wants to apply
> > a patch, they can put their own ebuild into an overlay and do it
> > themselves (presumably if they want to patch something, they'll know how
> > to make the simple modifications to an ebuild).  By allowing the user to
> > arbitrarily patch something means we have no idea what the user has
> > built and is filing a bug about.  If they installed an ebuild from an
> > overlay it is a lot easier to identify what they built.  Sure, they
> > could patch the ebuild in their tree, but by supporting user supplied
> > patches easily in this way, we are encouraging them to patch things
> > without our knowledge.  If we start supporting this across the board, I
> > can see bugs being filed when their patches break and they don't
> > understand what is happening.
> 
> that's actually exactly what i'm encouraging.  i'm not worried about such 
> issues as they're easily resolved by people posting the full build log.

Which is great, but I think this is something we should discuss and
figure out if this is something we want to introduce into the tree (too
late now, but better late than never).  If it is something we want to
move forward with, it should be introduced at the package manager level
instead of being an in-tree package manager specific feature.

I'm coming at this from a QA perspective and if we want to do it for one
package, it should be introduced for all.  We should document it and
know how to support it as well.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Markus Ullmann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1001 bytes --]

Mark Loeser schrieb:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>> that's actually exactly what i'm encouraging.  i'm not worried about such 
>> issues as they're easily resolved by people posting the full build log.
> 
> Which is great, but I think this is something we should discuss and
> figure out if this is something we want to introduce into the tree (too
> late now, but better late than never).  If it is something we want to
> move forward with, it should be introduced at the package manager level
> instead of being an in-tree package manager specific feature.
> 
> I'm coming at this from a QA perspective and if we want to do it for one
> package, it should be introduced for all.  We should document it and
> know how to support it as well.

+1 on that,
quite a bunch of overlayed ebuilds won't be needed if additional patches 
could be applied this way. we should just find a way to enable/disable 
this and make it visible on support requests.

Greetz
-Jokey


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 738 bytes --]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:18:44 -0400
Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If it is something we want to move forward with, it should be
> introduced at the package manager level instead of being an in-tree
> package manager specific feature.

cat /etc/paludis/hooks/ebuild_unpack_post/patches.bash
(
    einfo "Looking for user patches"
    cd "${S}"
    patchdir="/etc/paludis/autopatch/${CATEGORY}/${PN}"
    if [[ -d $patchdir ]] ; then
        einfo "Applying user patches"
        for p in $patchdir/*.patch ; do
            einfo "Applying $(basename ${p} )"
            patch -p1 < ${p} || exit 1
        done
        einfo "Done"
    fi
)

Not that I'd really encourage its use...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 956 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:18:44 -0400
> Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> If it is something we want to move forward with, it should be
>> introduced at the package manager level instead of being an in-tree
>> package manager specific feature.
> 
> cat /etc/paludis/hooks/ebuild_unpack_post/patches.bash
> (
>     einfo "Looking for user patches"
>     cd "${S}"
>     patchdir="/etc/paludis/autopatch/${CATEGORY}/${PN}"
>     if [[ -d $patchdir ]] ; then
>         einfo "Applying user patches"
>         for p in $patchdir/*.patch ; do
>             einfo "Applying $(basename ${p} )"
>             patch -p1 < ${p} || exit 1
>         done
>         einfo "Done"
>     fi
> )
> 
> Not that I'd really encourage its use...
> 

A similar hook can be rewritten (and I think solar already has) using 
Portage bashrc support so we already have the custom patching support.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2115 bytes --]

On Sunday 30 March 2008, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> > On Sunday 30 March 2008, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > > Actually, I'd say this should just be removed.  If a user wants to
> > > apply a patch, they can put their own ebuild into an overlay and do it
> > > themselves (presumably if they want to patch something, they'll know
> > > how to make the simple modifications to an ebuild).  By allowing the
> > > user to arbitrarily patch something means we have no idea what the user
> > > has built and is filing a bug about.  If they installed an ebuild from
> > > an overlay it is a lot easier to identify what they built.  Sure, they
> > > could patch the ebuild in their tree, but by supporting user supplied
> > > patches easily in this way, we are encouraging them to patch things
> > > without our knowledge.  If we start supporting this across the board, I
> > > can see bugs being filed when their patches break and they don't
> > > understand what is happening.
> >
> > that's actually exactly what i'm encouraging.  i'm not worried about such
> > issues as they're easily resolved by people posting the full build log.
>
> Which is great, but I think this is something we should discuss and
> figure out if this is something we want to introduce into the tree (too
> late now, but better late than never).  If it is something we want to
> move forward with, it should be introduced at the package manager level
> instead of being an in-tree package manager specific feature.
>
> I'm coming at this from a QA perspective and if we want to do it for one
> package, it should be introduced for all.  We should document it and
> know how to support it as well.

there is no package-manager specificness here.  it's already completely doable 
from a user perspective, just having it in the ebuild makes my life and 
users' lives easier.  i'm using it in packages that tend to have a lot of 
extraneous patchsets associated with them.  the random patches were punted 
from ebuilds and now it's up to the user to maintain the feature sets.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> posted
200803302039.14615.vapier@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on  Sun, 30 Mar
2008 20:39:14 -0400:

> there is no package-manager specificness here.  it's already completely
> doable from a user perspective, just having it in the ebuild makes my
> life and users' lives easier.  i'm using it in packages that tend to
> have a lot of extraneous patchsets associated with them.  the random
> patches were punted from ebuilds and now it's up to the user to maintain
> the feature sets.

I've been working with upstream, various users, and Dan Rahn from 
OpenSuSE (who has been absolutely great to work with, especially so since 
he can do the coding I can't), on glib-2.16 and gcc-4.3 compatibility 
patches for net-nntp/pan, and something like this would certainly make my 
life a lot easier.  FWIW the Gentoo bugs are 21160 and 214446, with half 
the story on the pan-user list (which is developer oriented too right now 
since the stable build is ancient so most users are on the beta releases 
or SVN).

The point here though is that particularly for the glib patch, which has 
undergone several rounds of testing and looks set for another round or 
two at least, this user patch infrastructure would sure be nice!

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Peter Volkov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1160 bytes --]


В Пнд, 31/03/2008 в 06:21 +0000, Duncan пишет:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> posted
> 200803302039.14615.vapier@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on  Sun, 30 Mar
> 2008 20:39:14 -0400:
> 
> > there is no package-manager specificness here.  it's already completely
> > doable from a user perspective, just having it in the ebuild makes my
> > life and users' lives easier.  i'm using it in packages that tend to
> > have a lot of extraneous patchsets associated with them.  the random
> > patches were punted from ebuilds and now it's up to the user to maintain
> > the feature sets.

> The point here though is that particularly for the glib patch, which has 
> undergone several rounds of testing and looks set for another round or 
> two at least, this user patch infrastructure would sure be nice!

It possible to use /etc/portage/bashrc to have this infrastructure.
Search mailing list, it was discussed here at least twice, and this is
example from solar:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/bashrc
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/portage_misc/bashrc.autopatch

There is no need to put such things into ebuild.

-- 
Peter.

[-- Attachment #2: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild

[Duncan]

Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> posted 1206958545.9865.41.camel@localhost,
excerpted below, on  Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:15:45 +0400:

> It possible to use /etc/portage/bashrc to have this infrastructure.
> Search mailing list, it was discussed here at least twice, and this is
> example from solar:
> 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/bashrc
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/portage_misc/bashrc.autopatch

Thanks.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

User patches (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild)

[Vlastimil Babka]

Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>> On Sunday 30 March 2008, Mark Loeser wrote:
>>> Actually, I'd say this should just be removed.  If a user wants to apply
>>> a patch, they can put their own ebuild into an overlay and do it
>>> themselves (presumably if they want to patch something, they'll know how
>>> to make the simple modifications to an ebuild).  By allowing the user to
>>> arbitrarily patch something means we have no idea what the user has
>>> built and is filing a bug about.  If they installed an ebuild from an
>>> overlay it is a lot easier to identify what they built.  Sure, they
>>> could patch the ebuild in their tree, but by supporting user supplied
>>> patches easily in this way, we are encouraging them to patch things
>>> without our knowledge.  If we start supporting this across the board, I
>>> can see bugs being filed when their patches break and they don't
>>> understand what is happening.
>> that's actually exactly what i'm encouraging.  i'm not worried about such 
>> issues as they're easily resolved by people posting the full build log.
> 
> Which is great, but I think this is something we should discuss and
> figure out if this is something we want to introduce into the tree (too
> late now, but better late than never).  If it is something we want to
> move forward with, it should be introduced at the package manager level
> instead of being an in-tree package manager specific feature.

I think that maybe we should first introduce new patching phase and then 
make this user patch really usable feature. For example if you want to 
patch something that's input to running autotools, doing it in 
post_src_unpack is too late...

Caster
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: User patches (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild)

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On 2008/03/31, Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I think that maybe we should first introduce new patching phase and
> then make this user patch really usable feature. For example if you
> want to patch something that's input to running autotools, doing it
> in post_src_unpack is too late...
> 

Not really.  I'm using Ed Catmur's bashrc, and his post_src_unpack hook
for /etc/portage/patches/ can detect when running autotools is needed:
http://sources.catmur.co.uk/viewvc/svn/gentoo/phase_hooks.d/post_src_unpack/portage-patches?view=co
http://catmur.co.uk/gentoo/

Sure, this detection (based on what files are modified) may not work
in all cases.  And when it does, then autotools may fail too (basically
wherever an ebuild writer would have needed to do do more than just
"inherit autotools" before running "eautofoo"). But it's still pretty cool.

-- 
TGL.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list