[gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[Pete Gavin]

Daniel,

I normally name my patches ${PF}-gentoo.diff, and I was thinking it
would be cool for ebuild to automatically check for a patch with this
name in the files directory and apply it in the src_unpack phase if it
exists. What do you think?

Pete

Re: [gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[Daniel Robbins]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 11:11:06AM -0600, Pete Gavin wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> I normally name my patches ${PF}-gentoo.diff, and I was thinking it
> would be cool for ebuild to automatically check for a patch with this
> name in the files directory and apply it in the src_unpack phase if it
> exists. What do you think?

Definitely possible.  What options should "patch" use by default?

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[Pete Gavin]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 11:46:41AM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 11:11:06AM -0600, Pete Gavin wrote:
> > Daniel,
> > 
> > I normally name my patches ${PF}-gentoo.diff, and I was thinking it
> > would be cool for ebuild to automatically check for a patch with this
> > name in the files directory and apply it in the src_unpack phase if it
> > exists. What do you think?
> 
> Definitely possible.  What options should "patch" use by default?
> 

Well, I normally make 2 copies of the original source directory, ${S}
and ${S}.orig, then make my changes in ${S}. After I'm done, I do
diff -urP ${S}.orig ${S}
Then, in my ebuild, I do cd ${S} and then
patch -p1 < ${PF}-gentoo.diff

Pete

Re: [gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[Achim Gottinger]

Pete Gavin wrote:
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I normally name my patches ${PF}-gentoo.diff, and I was thinking it
> would be cool for ebuild to automatically check for a patch with this
> name in the files directory and apply it in the src_unpack phase if it
> exists. What do you think?
> 
> Pete

Hi Pete,

I think this is basicly a good idea. I'm not sure if using ${PF} is
neccesary because one must allways copy 
the patch even if the change has nothing to do with it. 
Do you mean to apply the patch only if the default src_unpack function
is used?

achim~

> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[Pete Gavin]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 08:03:00PM +0200, Achim Gottinger wrote:
> Pete Gavin wrote:
> > 
> > Daniel,
> > 
> > I normally name my patches ${PF}-gentoo.diff, and I was thinking it
> > would be cool for ebuild to automatically check for a patch with this
> > name in the files directory and apply it in the src_unpack phase if it
> > exists. What do you think?
> > 
> > Pete
> 
> Hi Pete,
> 
> I think this is basicly a good idea. I'm not sure if using ${PF} is
> neccesary because one must allways copy 
> the patch even if the change has nothing to do with it. 
> Do you mean to apply the patch only if the default src_unpack function
> is used?
> 

Well, I think its better to always use the version and revision on the
patch name, because (I think I've said this before) if you change the
patch, it would retroactively apply to previous versions/revisions,
thus defeating the purpose of even having package versioning.

And to answer your question, yes, the patch should only be applied in
the default src_unpack, the same way ${A} is only unpacked in the
default.

Pete

Re: [gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[Achim Gottinger]

Pete Gavin wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 08:03:00PM +0200, Achim Gottinger wrote:
> > Pete Gavin wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > I normally name my patches ${PF}-gentoo.diff, and I was thinking it
> > > would be cool for ebuild to automatically check for a patch with this
> > > name in the files directory and apply it in the src_unpack phase if it
> > > exists. What do you think?
> > >
> > > Pete
> >
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> > I think this is basicly a good idea. I'm not sure if using ${PF} is
> > neccesary because one must allways copy
> > the patch even if the change has nothing to do with it.
> > Do you mean to apply the patch only if the default src_unpack function
> > is used?
> >
> 
> Well, I think its better to always use the version and revision on the
> patch name, because (I think I've said this before) if you change the
> patch, it would retroactively apply to previous versions/revisions,
> thus defeating the purpose of even having package versioning.
> 
>From pragmatic point of view (reduce typing and cvs size), the question
is what happens
more often (changes in the patch or in the ebuild scripts). Based on my
experiences modifications
to the scripts happen more often.
But what you said about versioning is true and using ${PF} makes the
system more transparent, so I agree.

achim~


> And to answer your question, yes, the patch should only be applied in
> the default src_unpack, the same way ${A} is only unpacked in the
> default.
> 
> Pete
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[Daniel Robbins]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 08:25:55PM +0200, Achim Gottinger wrote:

> is what happens more often (changes in the patch or in the ebuild scripts).
> Based on my experiences modifications to the scripts happen more often.  But
> what you said about versioning is true and using ${PF} makes the system more
> transparent, so I agree.

Me too :)

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[Achim Gottinger]

Daniel,

I have a suggestion for xbuild.

We can outsource the gentoo specific patching and seding from the unpack
function.

So src_unpack contains the unpack and non gentoo patches and src_patch
contains the specific modifications.

The advantage is that it whould be alot of easier to maintain the
patches.

-ebuild * unpack
-make a copy of the work dir
-ebuild * patch
-make modifications and create a new diff

achim~

Re: [gentoo-dev] portage feature suggestion

[Daniel Robbins]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 08:33:19PM +0200, Achim Gottinger wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> I have a suggestion for xbuild.
> 
> We can outsource the gentoo specific patching and seding from the unpack
> function.
> 
> So src_unpack contains the unpack and non gentoo patches and src_patch
> contains the specific modifications.
> 
> The advantage is that it whould be alot of easier to maintain the
> patches.
> 
> -ebuild * unpack
> -make a copy of the work dir
> -ebuild * patch
> -make modifications and create a new diff

Yes, this would be helpful for creating Gentoo-specific patches.  We can
add this feature in xbuild -- remind me in 4 months :))

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.