On 01/02/2018 08:35 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Sun, 2017-12-31 at 18:13 -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 12/30/2017 04:52 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
2) Would it make sense to further gitify the specfile and move from patch to
"git apply" here (and a few other places)? Or should we expect patch to do the
right thing? (In the latter case I guess I might have to report a bug against
patch.)
We've generally been expecting patch to do the right thing and it's
worked so far.
A few web searches helped me remember something comparable:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/26/692 .
What I did remember without hitting the web was that "git apply" is meant to
be a drop in replacement for patch (for the patches "git diff" creates, that
is). Since we are only using patches created by git nowadays, aren't we, we
might as well use "git apply" for them.
I'm not opposed to gitifying more parts of the spec
file but do you have a particular reason for doing so?
Preventing problems like this (and the one from 2015).
Another thing is that I noticed that the git repository we create during
rpmbuild doesn't properly track all changes. In this case we do not "git add"
new files. That is why I changed
git commit -a -m "..."
to
git add -A
git commit -m "..."
I also noticed that the removal of .gitignore files isn't tracked. And it's a
bit annoying to have the removal of those files show up in "git status". "git
status" was one of the things I did when pinpointing this issue.
Of course these are just small things, but they do make pinpointing stuff like
this a bit more annoying than it should be.
Yes, I discovered the git add bit as well. I think it's probably worth
converting over to using git apply assuming nobody else can think of
objections.
It seemed like when Josh made the original change for git he had a few things
in mind.
A bit off topic: I suppose at the ultimate goal is to do rpmbuild from within
a proper git clone of the kernel repository. Ie, using a branch with Fedora's
patches, a specfile, and whatever else we need. Perhaps further gitifying the
current specfile helps to reach that goal. Not sure, though.
If you're referring to the rpmbuild in the upstream kernel tree, I don't
think it's particularly feasible for an official distribution. We end up
doing a lot of extra things on top of what's necessary just to package the
kernel and modules. I do want to experiment with making the upstream rpmbuild
more useful though.
Thanks,
Paul Bolle
Thanks,
Laura
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
