Am Donnerstag, 14. August 2008 17:24:41 schrieb Santiago M. Mola: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Andrew D Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Patches in the metadata.xml should have some sort of status tracking for > > each patch, repoman should flag any that don't, and warn on any that have > > not been submitted upstream unless the status is signed off on by a herd > > leader (such as Gentoo specific patches). This would provide visual > > feedback for users and developers with regard to a pretty important > > metric on how successful Gentoo is at getting patches pushed back to > > developers. > > It was proposed recently to add some standarized headers to all new > patches for maintenance purposes. Something like: > > Source: patch by John Foo, backported from upstream, whatever. > Upstream: In revision 245, rejected, foo. > Reason: Build system sucks > > I think that's all we need in order to know how were things when the > patch was added and if it needs to be pushed/tracked upstream, removed > in the next version of the package, etc. > > Some of us already put these kind of headers, or at least an URL to > upstream bug or a meaningful source of info about the patch. > > However, tracking the status of every patch since its inclusion in > portage until it's removed would be a huge work overhead... and I > doubt it's worthy.
i am using the lfs tool to create my patches: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/MAINTAINER/lfspatch it creates patches with patch version number: irtrans-irserver-5.11.08-arm_remotes-1.patch and the header it creates looks like this: Submitted By: Mario Fetka (mario-fetka at gmx dot at) Date: 2008-07-18 Initial Package Version: 5.11.08 Origin: me Upstream Status: unknown Description: add back remotes and correct makefile arm dir location i think some rules for patches would be a good thing. i would also suggest naming rules for the patches Mario
