[Buildroot] [PATCH 02/11] manual: minor fix in patch-policy.txt

Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com
Tue Feb 26 11:01:21 UTC 2013

Dear Samuel Martin,

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:44:39 +0100, Samuel Martin wrote:

> >> +- If a patch does some package version fixes, this should be documented in the
> >> +commit message of the patch itself (or the message prepended to the 'diff'
> >> +itself).
> >
> > I am not sure to understand this part.
> I don't know how to explain this clearly.
> My point is, for some packages, BR does not provide the latest version,
> but some fix may be available upstream, so they have been backported in BR
> (e.g.: package/libglib2/libglib2-make-codegen-python2-python3-compliant.patch).
> Any suggestion to explain this point in a better way is welcome.

I don't understand why you would want to put this here in the
documentation. What you're saying is just a detail on what the patch
could possibly contain (i.e a backport from upstream versus a
Buildroot-specific hack for cross-compilation), I don't see what it
changes in terms of patch policy.

> >> +* Otherwise, patch files matching +<packagename>-<description>.patch+
> >> +  are applied following the +ls+ command order.
> >
> > Shouldn't we be enforcing a <packagename>-<number>-<description>.patch
> > policy, in order to ensure that patches are applied in the right order?
> Well, here I stick to the current apply-patches.sh implementation.

The current apply-patches.sh implementation takes the patches in
alphabetical order, which is why it is important to have the patches
numbered to make sure that the patches are applied in a well-known
order, and not an order based on the <description> field alphabetical

Best regards,

Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.

More information about the buildroot mailing list