This is definitely worth formalizing. On 11/19/2013 10:22 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Several packages are using git for patch management. eg: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/erlang.git/tree/erlang.spec#n46 > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libguestfs.git/tree/libguestfs.spec?h=f20#n22 > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/qemu.git/tree/ > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ocaml.git/tree/ocaml.spec#n16 All the OpenStack packages also use this technique too: Specifically you use a comment of the form to mark the auto generated patches: # patches_base=$tag For example see: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/openstack-nova.git/tree/openstack-nova.spec#n37 One can also add an optional +number to skip that many patches after a tag, which we found useful in various cases. > Some of these packages have invented home-brewed methods to generate > the Patch lines in the spec file, eg: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/erlang.git/tree/otp-get-patches.sh > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libguestfs.git/tree/copy-patches.sh?h=f20 https://github.com/redhat-openstack/redhat-openstack.github.com/blob/scripts/update-patches.sh > More importantly, all are using random git repositories to store the > exploded tree. This makes it difficult for co-maintainers and proven > packagers to fit in with the patch management chosen by the > maintainer. Usually they won't have access to the git repository for > these patches, making it difficult to add patches and near impossible > to upgrade to a new version. > > I think that git is an excellent way to manage patches, but we ought > to think about formalizing this process. I think the goals should be: > > (1) A git repository is used that co-maintainers and proven packagers > automatically have access to. This would be the crux of formalizing this. For the OpenStack packages we use a separate github organisation to manage this (as well as other things): http://github.com/redhat-openstack/ > (2) A single method & script is used to update the patches in the spec file. > > Although there is already a git repository satisfying (1) above, > namely dist-git, it isn't suitable for storing the exploded tree since > commits to the spec file would conflict with commits (patches) to the > tree. So either a separate side repository which packages could > opt-in to, or perhaps a separate branch of the same git repo could be > used. I think using a branch would require no additional > infrastructure. > > For (2) I would suggest a lightweight technique where git-managed > patches are marked in the spec file using: > > ### GIT-MANAGED-PATCHES ### > ### END-GIT-MANGED-PATCHES ### > > and a simple script that replaces everything between those marks with > PatchXXXX lines. The script could be adapted from copy-patches.sh > (see above). > > To apply the patches, a standard RPM macro could be created: > > %prep > %setup -q > %{git_apply_patches} > > which would expand to something like: > > git init > git config user.email "%{name}-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" > git config user.name "%{name}" > git add . > git commit -a -q -m "%{version} baseline" > git am %{patches} > > Thoughts on this? Using patch(1) to apply patches mostly works with a few caveats (binary patches come to mind). Using git to apply is a new dependency but also the most general method for applying. thanks, Pádraig. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
