[aur-general] AUR and patches

hollunder at gmx.at hollunder at gmx.at
Fri Jul 10 07:55:20 EDT 2009

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:27:44 +0700
Felix <felix at seconddrawer.com.au> 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

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

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


More information about the aur-general mailing list