[aur-general] AUR and patches
Hi all, what is the policy or recommendation for applying patches to upstream sources? For a standard package that is listed as such (ie. not a patched version) then I assume the only patches applied are those to make it compile and install. If I were to add some patches that enhanced the functionality then I would create a new package in AUR that stated that. Does that sound reasonable? -felix -- email: felix(at)seconddrawer.com.au web: http://seconddrawer.com.au/ gpg: E6FC 5BC6 268D B874 E546 8F6F A2BB 220B D5F6 92E3
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:27:44 +0700
Felix
Hi all,
what is the policy or recommendation for applying patches to upstream sources?
For a standard package that is listed as such (ie. not a patched version) then I assume the only patches applied are those to make it compile and install. If I were to add some patches that enhanced the functionality then I would create a new package in AUR that stated that. Does that sound reasonable?
-felix
I'm no authority on that, but personally I pretty much handle it like that. Most patches I write are gcc or DESTDIR related and I submit them to upstream, if possible. I had one case where a user requested that I add patches and he supplied me with the patches and information about the bugs that those patches fix. It looked reasonable so I added them as well as another functionality enhancing patch I knew of (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22752). Now the next version of this software is released and half of the patches aren't needed anymore, so I simply remove them. In my opinion it's easier to remove patches than to add them, so in a case like this one I'll provide information about the patches in the form of comments. The user can then decide if he wants them, removal is trivial. Regards, Philipp
On 10.07.2009 13:27, Felix wrote:
Hi all,
what is the policy or recommendation for applying patches to upstream sources?
For a standard package that is listed as such (ie. not a patched version) then I assume the only patches applied are those to make it compile and install. If I were to add some patches that enhanced the functionality then I would create a new package in AUR that stated that. Does that sound reasonable?
-felix
Hi Felix, you assumed correctly. But as always, if upstream is broken, a package based workaround should only be temporary and you should always try to fix it upstream! In fact, if fixing upstream is faster and the release cycle is quick, always try to fix it there first. -- Sven-Hendrik
Hello Felix!
I've added a small patch to vimgdb patch to vim.
This was because vimgdb patch wasn't maintained for the new vim version.
irst of all i've posted this to the vimgdb patch authors.
And of course i've added it to my aur package too :)
Sincerelly,
Laszlo Papp
2009/7/10 Sven-Hendrik Haase
On 10.07.2009 13:27, Felix wrote:
Hi all,
what is the policy or recommendation for applying patches to upstream sources?
For a standard package that is listed as such (ie. not a patched version) then I assume the only patches applied are those to make it compile and install. If I were to add some patches that enhanced the functionality then I would create a new package in AUR that stated that. Does that sound reasonable?
-felix
Hi Felix,
you assumed correctly. But as always, if upstream is broken, a package based workaround should only be temporary and you should always try to fix it upstream! In fact, if fixing upstream is faster and the release cycle is quick, always try to fix it there first.
-- Sven-Hendrik
participants (4)
-
Felix
-
hollunder＠gmx.at
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase
-
taptaptap dödödö