Re: [gentoo-dev] portage question

From: "Christian Skarby" <christian@skarby.no>
To: <bain@reaper.org>
Cc: <arutha@gmx.de>, <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] portage question
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:53:39 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <33154.10.0.7.101.1033559619.squirrel@webmail.interhost.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021002120659.50d88c3f.bain@reaper.org>

I kind of like the idea of this feature, but AFAIK are diffs most usefull
when there are little difference from the source-files we already have.
I.e. as soon as all the code is changed a diff-file will include both the
old and the new source. If we implement this feature I think it would be
nice to put some logic into it so that it can (f.ex. by looking at
file-sizes) decide if one should download a patch or two or rather
download the full source.

Christian

>> Huh? What's so difficult about unpack source from version x, unpack
>> from  version y run a diff over the two directories and put that into
>> patch-source-package z.
>>
>> Now lets say we want to update our kernel from gentoo-sources-2.4.18
>> to  gentoo-sources-2.4.19-r7. Portage sees there's already a
>> linux-2.4.18.tar.bz2  so we don't download the linux-2.4.19.tar.bz2
>> from kernel.org but instead  download the patch from 2.4.18 to 2.4.19,
>> unpack the 2.4.18 into our new  directory, patch it to 2.4.19 and then
>> patch in the stuff that makes a  gentoo-sources-r7 out of it.
>
> This should be fairly easy to implement ..
> patches have a naming standard as well .. or should have anyway ..
>
> having a look at kernel stuff .. the naming is :
>
> patch-2.4.19.bz2
>
> So .. if you have linux-2.4.15.tar.bz2 installed portage know to grab
>
> patch-2.4.16.bz2
> patch-2.4.17.bz2
> patch-2.4.18.bz2
> patch-2.4.19.bz2
>
> and applying them in order to linux-2.4.15.tar.bz2
>
> Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me ...
>
>> I don't see where this would be a problem either with the kernel or
>> any other  package. Of course you'd need quite some patches on the
>> servers for that  thats true :)
>>
>> No, don't build it into the ebuilds, let portage do it. The ebuild has
>> nothing  to do with it!
>
> I agree ... this should be handled in portage .. not the ebuild ..  yes
> there should be a PATCH_SRC_URI setting for the patches but thats about
> it
>
> Henti
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev