On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:43:18PM -0700, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Zbyszek, > > >>>>> On 16 March 2015 at 23:15, Marcel Holtmann <mar...@holtmann.org> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Dimitri, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> This makes it easier to apply stable branch patches on top of the > >>>>>>> release tarball. > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> Makefile.am | 4 +++- > >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am > >>>>>>> index 856accb..0ed35ac 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/Makefile.am > >>>>>>> +++ b/Makefile.am > >>>>>>> @@ -3877,7 +3877,9 @@ dist_udevhwdb_DATA = \ > >>>>>>> hwdb/70-touchpad.hwdb > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> EXTRA_DIST += \ > >>>>>>> - units/systemd-hwdb-update.service.in > >>>>>>> + units/systemd-hwdb-update.service.in \ > >>>>>>> + hwdb/ids-update.pl \ > >>>>>>> + hwdb/sdio.ids > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I do not think that these files belong in the tarball. Especially the > >>>>>> sdio.ids is not something that should be in the tarball. If it is > >>>>>> missing locally, a script can always download it rom systemd.git tree. > >>>>>> That is where the source is for these and not the tarball. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you want to apply patches from git, then you can always tell git to > >>>>>> exclude these files and it will happily apply the rest of the patch. > >>>>>> So I do not see a good enough reason to do this. > >>>>> > >>>>> I should be able to regenerate generated copies of code from things > >>>>> included in the tarball without network or git... I need this > >>>>> precisely because stable patches are patching sdio.ids... which is (a) > >>>>> missing (b) ids-update.pl is missing (c) the files that are generated > >>>>> with a&b are not updated.... > >>>> > >>>> (a) and (b) can be solved by telling 'patch' or 'git' to not apply > >>>> hunks to those files. > >>>> > >>>> (c) sounds wrong to me. Whenever we change ids-update.pl and friends, > >>>> we also run them and commit the results to -git. So either you apply > >>>> the wrong patch (the ids-update.pl-path instead of the patch that > >>>> commits the results), or your haven't been looking closely enough. I > >>>> don't see why a distribution would be interested in fixes for > >>>> ids-update.pl? It should be ignored and never marked for back-porting. > >>>> Only if at the same run we also update the generated files, those > >>>> should be picked up. > >>> > >>> Looking at stable branch: > >>> > >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd-stable/log/hwdb?h=v219-stable > >>> > >>> sdio.ids was changed in > >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd-stable/commit/hwdb?h=v219-stable&id=c10e229f8222b92117ba38045ddb3e4d7951244a > >>> > >>> but updated in a later commit > >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd-stable/commit/hwdb?h=v219-stable&id=9ac622b00ca23f9d01e0ff0c944130be8dc3a0e9 > >>> > >>> So they do look up to date there. > >>> > >>> usb.ids does not appear to be in the source tree. > >>> > >>> To me this looks untidy, as preffered form of modification is not > >>> shipped in full neither in git, nor in the tarball. And I do need to > >>> modify them, the hwdb is too large and has too many things for my > >>> targets thus I'm looking at how to patch them out in a maintainable > >>> way. > >> > >> that is pretty much your problem to solve if you do not want the full > >> database. Why is that a stable tree issue? Especially since shrinking the > >> database has nothing to do with ids-update.pl or sdio.ids. > >> > >>> Why not just commit ids-update.pl / sdio.ids and generate the .hwdb > >>> files on $ make dist, or at autoreconf time? > >> > >> Just tell patch or git to skip the hunks modifying ids-update.pl and > >> sdio.ids. Problem solved. > > > > I'll apply the patch, but with a slightly different motivation. > > > > [L]GPL requires commercial entities distributing a modified version of > > the program to provide full source in the preferred form for modification, > > including all scripts used for building. This includes sdio.ids and > > ids-update.pl. We should make it easy to follow the our licensing, so > > we should include those files in our tarball to make it directly > > redistributable. > > that is just making stuff up. Where was I wrong?
> Are you now also including usb.ids? We probably should Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
