From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JgM4O-0007k6-71 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:37:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5DDFBE03D9; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dsrg.mff.cuni.cz (dsrg.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.20.55]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EDCE03D9 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vpn-ksi-dsrg.ms.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.20.92] helo=[10.10.16.171]) by dsrg.mff.cuni.cz with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JgM4L-0007yB-BU for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:37:09 +0200 Message-ID: <47F10524.4080406@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:37:08 +0200 From: Vlastimil Babka User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080303) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: User patches (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/iproute2: ChangeLog iproute2-2.6.24.20080108.ebuild) References: <20080330054051.GE24954@comet.had1.or.comcast.net> <20080330191922.GA32327@aerie.halcy0n.com> <200803301544.55878.vapier@gentoo.org> <20080330211844.GB32327@aerie.halcy0n.com> In-Reply-To: <20080330211844.GB32327@aerie.halcy0n.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: dc606943-a053-4645-9f82-ef9031e95e82 X-Archives-Hash: 3459f5cd46fcd055c8d626869227ca29 Mark Loeser wrote: > Mike Frysinger 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