[gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Alin Năstac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 164 bytes --]

Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
versions than ${PV}.
Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?

Cheers,
Alin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 249 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:

> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> versions than ${PV}.
> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?

And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Mounir Lamouri]

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:
>
>> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
>> versions than ${PV}.
>> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
>
> And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?
>
> Ulrich
>
>

Or just rename it ${PN}-bar.patch instead of ${P}-bar.patch if it is a
patch for more than one ebuild version.
But older ebuild has to be changed to make it works.

Mounir

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Maciej Mrozowski]

On Sunday 22 of March 2009 18:18:15 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:
> > Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> > versions than ${PV}.
> > Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?

> And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?

I guess it may be possible to drop P (or replace with PN) from patch file 
names, to make it more obvious which patches should apply with which package 
version.

Also, I'd like Tomáš Chvátal (scarabeus) to finally propose his GLEP or just 
post it for discussion here as it's related to patch files management and 
provides naming scheme - it would address this issue as well as separate 
upstream patches from Gentoo specific ones in FILESDIR (and good thing is it's 
backward compatible and it doesn't need any EAPI revbump that would inevitably 
cause pointless discussion).

-- 
regards
MM

----------------------------------------------------------------------
10% zysku na lokacie bankowej z gwarancja BFG. Sprawdz!
http://clk.tradedoubler.com/click?p=74281&a=1586724&g=17879004

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Mounir Lamouri
<mounir.lamouri@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or just rename it ${PN}-bar.patch instead of ${P}-bar.patch if it is a
> patch for more than one ebuild version.
> But older ebuild has to be changed to make it works.
>

The ${PV} in the patch name is a quick indication of the age of a
patch, the gnome herd especially *encourages* this behavior.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

[gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 554 bytes --]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:50:26 +0100
Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> versions than ${PV}.
> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?

Um, why?

I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
FILESDIR.

-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1032 bytes --]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:24:26 -0400
Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, mrness wrote:
> >
> >> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> >> versions than ${PV}.
> >> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
> >
> > And multiply number and total size of files in ${FILESDIR}?
> >
>
> Or just rename it ${PN}-bar.patch instead of ${P}-bar.patch if it is a
> patch for more than one ebuild version.

And when the patch has to be changed?  ${PN}-foo-2.patch?

The PV in the patch name indicates what version the patch was made
for.  This can be useful info, if just for judging how bad you are at
sending patches upstream. ;)


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Sebastian Pipping]

Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
>> versions than ${PV}.
>> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
> 
> Um, why?
> 
> I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
> FILESDIR.

Good point.



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 22/03/2009 19:22, Nirbheek Chauhan a écrit :
> The ${PV} in the patch name is a quick indication of the age of a
> patch, the gnome herd especially *encourages* this behavior.

What I used to do back when I was still bumping packages in the Gnome 
Herd, I would version the patch, but I would use 
"${PN}-2.22-fix-foo.patch" for patch names.

It feels like the best of both worlds to me :
  - versionned patches (we know when we started shipping it)
  - easy bumping (no need to edit the ebuild)

The only downside is that cleaning up takes a couple more seconds since 
I have to check if patch 2.20 is used or not by packages 2.24...

But overall, it's bikeshedding. Git (or any other half decent SCM) 
should be able to compress identical patches down to a single blob.

My 2¢

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Alin Năstac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 587 bytes --]

On 3/22/09 11:47 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:50:26 +0100
> Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
>> versions than ${PV}.
>> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
>>     
>
> Um, why?
>
> I'm not having six identical patches with different version numbers in
> FILESDIR.
>
>   
Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
(foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 249 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 532 bytes --]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:19:26 +0100
Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
> you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
> (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).

No.  It's done this way for a reason.

-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Jeremy Olexa]

Alin Năstac wrote:
<snip>
> Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
> you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
> (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).
> 

What exactly is your problem that you are trying to solve here? Posting 
to the community to stop doing something without providing reasons to 
stop is not going to go anywhere. I like having the PV in the patch 
name..so, you haven't convinced me.

-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alin Năstac wrote:
> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> versions than ${PV}.
> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?

I opted to reply to your mail after reading all the other replies.
FWIW, I agree with you and have been doing that for desktop-effects and
KDE packages. Whenever we need to add a patch we do it as ${P}. If that
patch is not applied upstream and is needed for future versions, I
rename the patch to ${PN} to "decouple" it from a particular ${PV}.

> Cheers,
> Alin
> 

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknG6MkACgkQcAWygvVEyAJQkQCfRaf8IsqB89+AoZUL77gPdynH
Y5QAoJEXoQoBELvvIbW1mEqzVl0R0Azx
=joA9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Alin Năstac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

On 3/23/09 1:42 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:19:26 +0100
> Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
>> you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
>> (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).
>>     
>
> No.  It's done this way for a reason.
>
>   
I saw your reason about wanting to know the package version for which
the patch was created and I cannot see any reason for knowing that other
than submitting the patch to upstream.
Somehow I doubt upstream is interested in patches for version x.y.1 when
the current version is x.y.10.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 249 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Alin Năstac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1006 bytes --]

On 3/23/09 1:44 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Alin Năstac wrote:
> <snip>
>> Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version
>> you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version
>> (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me).
>>
>
> What exactly is your problem that you are trying to solve here?
> Posting to the community to stop doing something without providing
> reasons to stop is not going to go anywhere. I like having the PV in
> the patch name..so, you haven't convinced me.
>
IMO prefixing a patch name with $P creates the perception that the patch
is used only from ebuild version $PV. Apparently we do not agree on this
so there is not much more I can tell to convince others.

I suppose what everyone does in their part of the tree is their
business, but a small subset of packages I maintain have other
maintainers as well. It is annoying to see rules you assume being
respected on your ebuilds being broken at every bump made by others.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 249 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 694 bytes --]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:04:32 +0100
Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I suppose what everyone does in their part of the tree is their
> business, but a small subset of packages I maintain have other
> maintainers as well. It is annoying to see rules you assume being
> respected on your ebuilds being broken at every bump made by others.

I'm sure they're just as annoyed by your bizarre take on patch version
numbering as you are with theirs. ;)


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Sebastian Pipping]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> I suppose what everyone does in their part of the tree is their
>> business, but a small subset of packages I maintain have other
>> maintainers as well. It is annoying to see rules you assume being
>> respected on your ebuilds being broken at every bump made by others.
> 
> I'm sure they're just as annoyed by your bizarre take on patch version
> numbering as you are with theirs. ;)

Let me try summarizing and dissecting this issue.
Please correct and extend where necessary.


Bike shedding versus "real issue"

  - Issue itself might not be earth-shaking

  - Repeated frustration can become a problem

  - Frustration with this is present (me included)

  - Happy developers stay much longer


People split into three groups:

  - Friends of  ${P}-fix-issue.patch  naming

  - Friends of  ${PN}-fix-issue.patch  naming

  - Friends of  ${PN}-1.2.3-fix-issue.patch  naming


Qualities

  - ${P} i.e. ${PN}-${PV}
    - On version bump either ..
      - Constant on version bump
      - Several same-content patch files across ebuilds
    - .. or ..
      - Change to ${PN}-<pre-bump-version>
      - Single patch file across ebuilds
    - Maybe helps reminding most patches should
      move from downstream to upstream?
    - 1:1 patch-ebuild relation (see below)

  - ${PN}
    - Constant on version bump
    - Single patch file across ebuilds
    - Several ebuilds need to be inspected
      to find out if a patch file is still used
    - 1:1 patch-ebuild relation (see below)

  - ${PN}-1.2.3
    - Constant on version bump
    - Single patch file across ebuilds
    - Several ebuilds need to be inspected
      to find out if a patch file is still used
    - <=${PV} values indicate things: either
      - the patch is downstream only
      - upstream has not applied it
    - 1:n patch-ebuild relation
      (inverse qualities of 1:1 patch-ebuild
      relation, see below)


  - 1:1 patch-ebuild relation
    - Finding out if a patch is still needed
      is trivial
    - In-place patch updates possible without
      affecting other ebuilds
    - 1:1 benefits only apply if ${P} is used
      consistently in the whole tree


Possible solutions

  - *Communicating* your likes to all co-maintainers
    in hope the will respect and remember your agreement

  - Add a related local comment (*documenting*) to ebuilds
    and expect other developers to act accordingly on a bump

  - Making a GLEP *enforcing* on of these and make people
    vote on which



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Fabian Groffen]

On 23-03-2009 11:41:08 +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> People split into three groups:
> 
>   - Friends of  ${P}-fix-issue.patch  naming
>   - Friends of  ${PN}-fix-issue.patch  naming
>   - Friends of  ${PN}-1.2.3-fix-issue.patch  naming
> 
> Qualities

[snip]

I think what's missing is the following observation:

${PN}-fix-issue.patch naming is bad if you patch code that is (likely)
to change in newer releases.  This is almost always the case.  Ultimate
example, patch something in ffmpeg or mplayer, and the next snapshot
will break the patch.  (i.e. doesn't apply any more.)  Using
${PN}-fix-issue.patch in this case gets you into
${PN}-fix-issue-2.patch, which IMO is ugly.

If patches are named this way, they probably fall in the case where the
code it patches is unlikely to change.  (assumption)

> Possible solutions
> 
>   - *Communicating* your likes to all co-maintainers
>     in hope the will respect and remember your agreement
> 
>   - Add a related local comment (*documenting*) to ebuilds
>     and expect other developers to act accordingly on a bump

probably best solution

>   - Making a GLEP *enforcing* on of these and make people
>     vote on which

very bad one.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Sebastian Pipping]

Fabian Groffen wrote:
> I think what's missing is the following observation:
> 
> ${PN}-fix-issue.patch naming is bad if you patch code that is (likely)
> to change in newer releases.  This is almost always the case.  Ultimate
> example, patch something in ffmpeg or mplayer, and the next snapshot
> will break the patch.  (i.e. doesn't apply any more.)  Using
> ${PN}-fix-issue.patch in this case gets you into
> ${PN}-fix-issue-2.patch, which IMO is ugly.
> 
> If patches are named this way, they probably fall in the case where the
> code it patches is unlikely to change.  (assumption)

Good point.  In that case the patch "revision" 2 in
"${PN}-fix-issue-2.patch" actually stands for
"${PN}-fix-issue-1.2.4.patch" where "1.2.4" is the
version of the new package.  Therefor we effectively
${PV} from the begining to the end.

So a conlusion from this would be that ${PN} is not
suited for all ebuilds and therefore should not be
standard alone if at all?



Sebastian

[gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1708 bytes --]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:51:28 +0100
Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 23-03-2009 11:41:08 +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> > People split into three groups:
> > 
> >   - Friends of  ${P}-fix-issue.patch  naming
> >   - Friends of  ${PN}-fix-issue.patch  naming
> >   - Friends of  ${PN}-1.2.3-fix-issue.patch  naming
> > 
> > Qualities
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I think what's missing is the following observation:
> 
> ${PN}-fix-issue.patch naming is bad if you patch code that is (likely)
> to change in newer releases.  This is almost always the case.
> Ultimate example, patch something in ffmpeg or mplayer, and the next
> snapshot will break the patch.  (i.e. doesn't apply any more.)  Using
> ${PN}-fix-issue.patch in this case gets you into
> ${PN}-fix-issue-2.patch, which IMO is ugly.
> 
> If patches are named this way, they probably fall in the case where
> the code it patches is unlikely to change.  (assumption)
> 
> > Possible solutions
> > 
> >   - *Communicating* your likes to all co-maintainers
> >     in hope the will respect and remember your agreement
> > 
> >   - Add a related local comment (*documenting*) to ebuilds
> >     and expect other developers to act accordingly on a bump
> 
> probably best solution
> 
> >   - Making a GLEP *enforcing* on of these and make people
> >     vote on which
> 
> very bad one.
> 
> 

Thanks for this.  And apologies to Alin.  I was in a very bad mood
yesterday.


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Tomáš Chvátal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 728 bytes --]

Dne neděle 22 Březen 2009 17:50:26 Alin Năstac napsal(a):
> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
> versions than ${PV}.
> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
>
> Cheers,
> Alin
Hi,
I was working on patches glep [1] (nothing final and it is highly in progress 
but as i can see more pple is interested so i am throwing it to the space so 
there might be somebody else whom might help me with it).

Please dont mind the warnings on the file, it is my first glep :] And if you 
know how to fix them source is out there too [2]. ;]

[1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/patches-glep.html
[2] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/patches-glep.txt

Cheers,
Tomas

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne neděle 22 Březen 2009 17:50:26 Alin Năstac napsal(a):
>> Please do not apply patches that have ${P} prefix in other ebuild
>> versions than ${PV}.
>> Is that hard to create a new patch with a proper name?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alin
> Hi,
> I was working on patches glep [1] (nothing final and it is highly in progress 
> but as i can see more pple is interested so i am throwing it to the space so 
> there might be somebody else whom might help me with it).

I think the discussion made it clear that people want to do things differently
and there is no reason that we should not allow different teams to follow
different conventions.
Furthermore a lot of our patches are in the sed format and I happen to think
that's a good thing.
Unless your GLEP is prepared to handle these issues it seems completely useless
to me.

Marijn

- --
Gods do not want you to think, lest they lose existence.
Religions do not want you to think, lest they lose power.

Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknIw14ACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xTIwCfVJG03ysDRv2iCOWY/F0RFCTA
jBcAn06ku3nBjK/LKdMlg8Jc+48Dh+RU
=VqBN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Sebastian Pipping]

Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> Furthermore a lot of our patches are in the sed format and I happen to think
> that's a good thing.

My current view is that "sed patches" should only be used where
"static" patches don't work, ignoring laziness (including mine)
for the moment.

Why do you feel sed patches are a good thing?  Who but the ebuild
writer would prefer that to patches?  For instance isn't it much
easier to share patches among distros than parts of very distro-
specific scripts, ebuilds in our case?



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
>> Furthermore a lot of our patches are in the sed format and I happen to think
>> that's a good thing.
> 
> My current view is that "sed patches" should only be used where
> "static" patches don't work, ignoring laziness (including mine)
> for the moment.

That's enough reason right there. But also, static patches are very often not
what I want and they would often break unnecessarily where a sed would not have.
Lastly I prefer to have the source changes right there in the ebuild when they
are not too elaborate and patches don't allow that.

> Why do you feel sed patches are a good thing?  Who but the ebuild
> writer would prefer that to patches?  For instance isn't it much
> easier to share patches among distros than parts of very distro-
> specific scripts, ebuilds in our case?

sed's can very easily be turned into patches when needed, so we don't lose
anything. Patches are context dependent and usually this is not why I need.
Usually I need to replace certain strings irrespective of how many or where they
are or their context and sed is the tool that does exactly this and is more
robust to changes in the source that don't matter.

Marijn

- --
Gods do not want you to think, lest they lose existence.
Religions do not want you to think, lest they lose power.

Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknI1u4ACgkQp/VmCx0OL2yTzQCgtn3oWQihHbhWvr1/4a8MXncj
rgYAnih70WNPw5ErPKf9k7hn22DrUGbS
=RNV0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

[Duncan]

"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org> posted
49C8D6EE.3070401@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on  Tue, 24 Mar 2009
13:49:50 +0100:

> Lastly I prefer to have the source changes right there in the ebuild
> when they are not too elaborate and patches don't allow that.

The preference makes sense, but the statement based on it, that patches 
don't allow putting the change in the ebuild, doesn't.  I've used here 
document based patches in my own bash scripts to good effect so I know it 
works, and if it's working in my bash scripts, it's going to work in bash 
script based ebuilds as well.

The only reason patches would need to be file based would be convenience, 
and as soon as it's an inconvenience, with the convenience being having 
them in the ebuild itself, here document based patches to the rescue! =:^)

That "sed", "said" (ha! =:^) does have certain advantages as you pointed 
out, when a specific string change is desired, regardless of context, 
which may well change between versions.

-- 
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