Notice of intent: patching glibc

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Fri Sep 2 21:02:04 UTC 2011

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 13:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 22:28 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:20:19PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Is there a specific reason glibc does this?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > Can it not have a set of patches, one per change, as is usual practice?
> > 
> > Fedora glibc sources are from git, and the bit diff is just generated
> > diff between the upstream snapshot and corresponding Fedora snapshot,
> > sans a few Fedora-only directories (which are packaged as extra tarball).
> What is the 'corresponding Fedora snapshot'? What git tree is that a
> snapshot of? A Fedora downstream branch of glibc, a different upstream
> branch...?

Looking at , it seems we're simply talking
about the 'fedora' branch of upstream glibc. Given that this is an
upstream branch anyway, it would seem simpler to make our Source0 a
snapshot of the 'fedora' branch upstream, rather than starting with the
upstream 'master' and then adding an ugly patch and a mystery tarball to
turn upstream 'master' into the 'fedora' branch. I just don't see that
doing it the second way adds anything but confusion...

So this:

Source0: %{?glibc_release_url}%{glibcsrcdir}.tar.xz
Source1: %{?glibc_release_url}%{glibcportsdir}.tar.xz
Source2: %{glibcsrcdir}-fedora.tar.xz
Patch0: %{name}-fedora.patch
%setup -q -n %{glibcsrcdir} -b1 -b2
%patch0 -E -p1

would simply become:

# Fedora changes are an upstream git branch
# git clone -b fedora git://
# tar cvJf glibc-%{git}.tar.xz glibc/ --exclude=".git*"
Source0: glibc-%{git}.tar.xz
%setup -q -n glibc-%{git}

is there a problem with doing it that way? AFAIK, any upstream git
branch is a legitimate 'clean source', not just master.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list