[Buildroot] RFC: package patching
Peter Korsgaard
jacmet at uclibc.org
Fri Nov 18 07:34:58 UTC 2011
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> writes:
Hi,
>> - for packages that have multiple versions at once in buildroot,
>> patches go into package/foo/foo-version, but have the same filename:
>> <pkg>-<seqnum>-<description>.patch
Thomas> I would name the directory package/<foo>/<version> instead of
Thomas> package/<foo>/<foo>-<version>, because repeating <foo> is useless.
Agreed, but that might break existing users (but the number of people
having a version-specific subdir with custom patches is probably quite
small, so it might be ok).
Thomas> I also would like to see removed:
Thomas> * Support for *.patch.$(ARCH). But that requires some work to get rid
Thomas> of the current 4 arch-specific patches that we have for liboil, fbv,
Thomas> libmad and jamvm.
Thomas> * Support for host-*.patch (which are applied only to the host
Thomas> variant). We have only one such patch in the tree (for libgtk2) and
Thomas> with a bit of effort, we could make it generic enough so that it
Thomas> works on both host and target.
Agreed.
>> Some remaining questions:
>> * what if a package has multiple versions, and a certain patch applies
>> to both versions. Should there be one copy of the patch in
>> package/foo, or should the patch be duplicated in
>> package/foo/foo-version1 and package/foo/foo-version2 ?
Thomas> Duplicated.
Agreed.
>> * how many digits should the sequence number have? I now that
>> git-format-patch uses 4 digits (0001) but really isn't necessary for
>> buildroot since the number of patches we'll have for each package is
>> limited. A package with 99 patches would already be extraneous, so I'd
>> say 01 (2 digits) is enough.
>> This may seem like a detail, but discussing this should keep things
>> consistent throughout the future.
Thomas> Agreed that 2 digits is enough.
Me too.
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
More information about the buildroot
mailing list