Notice of intent: patching glibc
awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Sep 2 23:15:53 UTC 2011
On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 00:50 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 23:02:04 +0200, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > about the 'fedora' branch of upstream glibc.
> GDB uses a similar style for the merged patchsets in the Archer repository:
> > 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...
> The suggested way is made gcc:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jkratoch jkratoch 54082276 Sep 7 2010 fedora/gcc/f14/gcc-4.5.1-20100907.tar.bz2
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jkratoch jkratoch 59121454 Jun 3 14:45 fedora/gcc/f15/gcc-4.6.0-20110603.tar.bz2
> and I find it as difficult to manage updates over my 2Mbit ADSL (that is
> downloading the whole tarball again and again, instead of downloading just
> smaller differences); plus I was and sometimes I may be developing on GPRS.
I don't see why it would make any difference to download sizes. In fact,
they should get slightly smaller. When we bump glibc from master right
now, you have to download a new master tarball, plus new fedora tarball
and fedora patch. If we used the fedora branch as our upstream source,
you'd only have to download a new fedora branch tarball, which would be
slightly smaller than those three things combined.
I guess it'd cause a bigger download when Fedora changes are made but
master branch is not, but then that seems more a consequence of the
Fedora changes being in upstream git than anything else, which in itself
is somewhat odd.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel