From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RE4Yf-0004bE-Hz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:33:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD82121C07B; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CFF21C03A for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vapier.localnet (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B1C1B4004 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:33:07 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:33:06 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.0-rc4; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <20111011164918.2103A2004B@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <4E95E83D.8060906@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4E95E83D.8060906@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2615088.yPAazsX8oh"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201110121533.07266.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 85ab1534e48d1e231c80f6bbe7a21b0a --nextPart2615088.yPAazsX8oh Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:19:25 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote: > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > >> I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves > >> readability. Simple example: > >>=20 > >> # bug #123456, foo, bar > >> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch > >> # bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah > >> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-baz.patch > >>=20 > >> With multiple arguments, you can't put comments in the middle. > >=20 > > ++ It's also a lot easier to remove the single patches when they're no > > longer needed. >=20 > Removing an 'epatch foo' line is easier than 'foo \' ? You are kidding, > right? >=20 > > In the context of configuring, building and installing a > > package, the extra overhead is miniscule, whereas the above is *much* > > easier to maintain. >=20 > Based on what argument? >=20 > Having the comments inside the patch allows everyone, including > _upstreams_ straight up see what's it for and link to the bug it's > coming from. Where as keeping them in ebuilds makes it Gentoo specific, > which is not what we are about. i personally prefer: epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch #12345 epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-bar.patch #19512 #91991 epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-fatcow.patch #19291 because i personally like to have just the bug number there i know other people prefer to pass these all on one line: epatch \ "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch \ "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-bar.patch \ "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-fatcow.patch there is no standard here (i think they're more or less equally common) and= =20 maintainers are free to pick what they like best. arguing about the merits= =20 between the two above styles is a waste of everyone's time. go fix some bu= gs=20 instead you lazy wankers :P. the one thing Samuli is correct about though and largely has nothing to do= =20 with style is that the patch itself needs to have all the relevant=20 information. doing the following is wrong: # here i explain what the patch is for #12351 epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-bar.patch (and the bar patch contains only the diff) rather than rehash why you're wrong if you do the above, please read: http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/clean-patches =2Dmike --nextPart2615088.yPAazsX8oh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJOletzAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBsXUP/0XO5XJVImHK2gsc2i0QbAlb bo1rbSTNYkcqFFUPzNrubHpk9Rk5nsqgQdkul2VnmxDA138fnF07CTqHvX3Z/l04 eZyxrScekAhxH4pwZ2k0ztBSU0nqMbs8z5A6KToE3s7jlIObcm3asNx5eNIiqJde SGWNpBe0Q9stPdfC0co1HyXYkX/fL+6LpXPL3RYOpym//fluHDFiGYd/Cw9FOtQo G/RVThnETLEOYhjB3mPOFCNNgIbdyERg4v+Ssakgs/NMondHcZ5WZpqGn/ceOf+9 3hl70uGc8lY7larRuUX/C/fJRVdLHDxpbZw6nlXrek3PF8eix5jdQXiWAf+5s8Wb A/c4d5UMa4qQL6cOJlSqI5/qT1O5KuHuk/kHumcAsfhVLKzWw4HHc0mO1V6q/EQh ebMBZJBtHOmzP+FKj45A7prE3Tb+RcLnWLXOJdmc1Oe+ndlONvVMamKJ988ujonH l03JbTbaYdqTdlQqPO4Y2jOu4BzczUz8O12W5C3hHBCtzzmsiZYrNWWHvFMWq2Tg 6eBeM+TB+FwISb3uLQYishZfgqrpmZV1wU3gBa8++M1BfQQTwX0dUmMm0Ycsl4cZ M57s0TfFdKSofEoRHvcSMyA6FRV2twSDIqt9tmbzmXdeQPF9Xl+4RNoHq5jMwLuF h36d9FbtsArEAuFCk3MI =WuBU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2615088.yPAazsX8oh--