Notice of intent: patching glibc
Richard W.M. Jones
rjones at redhat.com
Wed Sep 7 12:05:34 UTC 2011
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 03:27:15PM -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Well, yes, that parallel came up in my mind too, but really, the two
> > aren't particularly similar. I don't think there's any intent to
> > obfuscate in the case of the glibc spec, it's simply done the way that
> > seemed convenient to its maintainers at the time. Note the Fedora kernel
> > package is a normal source / split out patches set. I'm not sure that
> > whole kerfuffle is particularly relevant to Fedora.
> Let me turn that on its head.
> As more projects become git based over time, the preferred form for code
> development might actually be a bisectable git checkout and not broken out
> patchsets for some projects. I'm not sure the distribution and packaging
> model that we collectively understand now and which grew up in the cvs and
> svn dominated era fits really well in the git dominated era. I think we are
> still groping around trying to figure out what the "preferred form" really
> is in the git dominated era. I'm not sure the broken out patchset will be
> it. It might soon be considered a legacy format in some situations.
While I agree with you, the glibc "big blob of patch" approach
isn't in either of the preferred forms.
At the same time that RPM allows you to bundle a git repo, perhaps we
can finally get rid of %changelog?
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
More information about the devel