1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
|
From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
Organization: SuSE Linux AG
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: Patch scripts 0.9 improvements
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:39:16 +0100
Hi Andrew,
I still find your patch management scripts very useful. There are a fewg
small limitations that still keeps me from using them for the SuSEg
kernel at the moment. Particularly I need a way to have sub-directoriesg
in patches/ etc.
Please find some improvements and ideas in the attached patch.
Also I think it would be a good idea to keep all (non-temporary)g
information pertaining to a patch in a single file, rather thang
splitting into .patch, .txt, .pc files. I have a format like theg
following in mind. A simple parser for that proposed format is alsog
attached.
Summary: Test patch
Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
URL: http://www.suse.de/
%description
DESCRIPTION
%files
FILE1
FILE2
FILE3
%patch
PATCH
I think that it doesn't make much sense to keep the .pc files (%filesg
section) as part of the patch set; they can easily be regenerated fromg
the .patch files. They are useful while working on a set of patchesg
though. What do you think of always generating them on the fly, insteadg
of using import_patch? Then the patches and series files could beg
checked out from CVS, and patching could start immediately; no cruftg
would assemble in the .pc files.
Another idea: Maybe all the *~* files could live in their own directoryg
tree, e.g., under pc/? Then the file names would become more simple,g
e.g., from file.x~patch to ps/patch/file.x and file.x~dir_patch tog
dir/patch/file.x, with a smaller chance of clashes. What do you think
of that?
Cheers,
Andreas.
[ Attachments removed ]
|
