Evolving standards for unpacked sources

Richard W.M. Jones rjones at redhat.com
Tue May 29 16:46:52 UTC 2012

Since the ocaml compiler now has a bunch of patches, and it's rather
hard to maintain and develop them, I'd like to keep unpacked sources
somewhere.  [1]

The idea is that maintainers, proven packagers etc should be able to
co-maintain those patches using the (much easier) git repo, instead of
creating their own git repo or faffing around with patches.

But where to keep it?  fedorahosted is a possibility, but:
(a) Is anyone else doing the same thing on fedorahosted?
(b) Should we have a standard project name for such packages
    (eg. 'fedora-ocaml')?

Has anyone written any tools for converting git repos into patches?
Currently I use 'git format-patch' and then I copy the patches.

Should we have a naming convention for patches?  I proposed to use
the 000*-*.patch files directly from git format-patch without
renaming them.

How should we comment the spec files for packages maintained this way?
It's (possibly) better to point to the git repo, rather than
having proven packagers adding ad-hoc patches.


[1] The patches are:

    - backport new ARM backend from upstream
    - one large patch that upstream rejected which adds ppc64 support
       [It's development of these new backends which causes all the trouble]

    - various minor fixes

Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine.  Supports Linux and Windows.

More information about the devel mailing list