On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 13:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 22:28 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:20:19PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Is there a specific reason glibc does this? > > > > Yes. > > > > > Can it not have a set of patches, one per change, as is usual practice? > > > > Fedora glibc sources are from git, and the bit diff is just generated > > diff between the upstream snapshot and corresponding Fedora snapshot, > > sans a few Fedora-only directories (which are packaged as extra tarball). > > What is the 'corresponding Fedora snapshot'? What git tree is that a > snapshot of? A Fedora downstream branch of glibc, a different upstream > branch...? Looking at http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git , it seems we're simply talking about the 'fedora' branch of upstream glibc. 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... So this: Source0: %{?glibc_release_url}%{glibcsrcdir}.tar.xz Source1: %{?glibc_release_url}%{glibcportsdir}.tar.xz Source2: %{glibcsrcdir}-fedora.tar.xz Patch0: %{name}-fedora.patch ... %setup -q -n %{glibcsrcdir} -b1 -b2 %patch0 -E -p1 would simply become: # Fedora changes are an upstream git branch # git clone -b fedora git://sources.redhat.com/git/glibc.git # tar cvJf glibc-%{git}.tar.xz glibc/ --exclude=".git*" Source0: glibc-%{git}.tar.xz .... %setup -q -n glibc-%{git} is there a problem with doing it that way? AFAIK, any upstream git branch is a legitimate 'clean source', not just master. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
