Evolving standards for unpacked sources
Hans Ulrich Niedermann
hun at n-dimensional.de
Tue May 29 19:57:46 UTC 2012
On 29/05/12 18:46, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> 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?
For Fedora's "erlang" package, Peter Lemenkov and I have been doing
something similar. This is probably not suitable for large scale
emulation, but it more or less works for us.
We both maintain a fork of upstream's Erlang/OTP git repository in our
respective github accounts. The RPMs are built from upstream's release
tarballs plus Fedora specific patch files. Whoever does the new Fedora
package, creates a fedora specific branch (re)based on that release's
git tag and commits the patches for the RPM to that branch (doing
cherry-pick, rebase, or whatever).
The otp-get-patches.sh script extracts the commits on that fedora
specific branch as patch files, hooks those into the spec file and also
changes the git index to account for old patch files removed and new
ones added. Specific lines from the commit messages are copied into the
spec files as comments, and as RPM %if... conditionals.
See the source in erlang.spec and otp-get-patches.sh for details.
> It's (possibly) better to point to the git repo, rather than
> having proven packagers adding ad-hoc patches.
Ad-hoc patches can also be easily put on top of the git branch later (if
that happens seldomly).
More information about the devel