This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: g-b-s patch: upstream patch list
- From: Igor Peshansky <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Eric Blake <ebb9 at byu dot net>
- Cc: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:45:10 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: g-b-s patch: upstream patch list
- References: <43DE2019.4060001@byu.net>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Eric Blake wrote:
> I finally made my upstream patching generic, following Igor's suggestion
> of providing foo-ver-rel.patch.tar.bz2 if there is more than one patch
> file being applied to foo-ver.tar.*. I used this patch on
> readline-5.1-2, and have been testing it on my (soon-to-be-released)
> bash-3.1-2. The idea is that you create a single file,
> CYGWIN-PATCHES/upstream_patches.lst, which is a listing of pathnames
> relative to ${srcdir} containing upstream patches. Then g-b-s can use
> the contents of that file to manipulate a .patches directory to
> create/unpack the patch tarball.
Heh, this is cool, thanks for doing this. I was working on the same kind
of functionality for pdksh over the weekend, and also have a whole bunch
of changes to the g-b-s, with essentially a very similar approach. Some
of your stuff looks cleaner, while some of mine may be more general --
I'll need to review and compare these in more detail. Some initial
comments on your patch below.
> 2006-01-30 Eric Blake <ebb9<at>byu.net>
>
> * templates/generic-build-script: Add ability to apply upstream
> patches, listed in CYGWIN-PATCHES/upstream_patches.lst.
> (mkdirs): Use new .patches directory.
> (fixup): New function.
> (prep): Unpack patch tarball.
> (mkpatch): Apply upstream patches before doing diff.
> (spkg): Make patch tarball if needed.
> (checksig): Look at patch tarball sig.
> (install): manifest.lst is not executable.
First off, please, please don't bundle unrelated changes into the same
patch. I like the idea of the leading comments, and of fixing up the mode
on manifest.lst, but could that be a separate patch, with a separate
ChangeLog? That makes it much easier to review the changes.
FWIW, in the comments, I'd replace "g-b-s" by "the script" everywhere,
since they will also appear in the actual build scripts. Also, I think
it's worth mentioning that depend() only lists the *static* DLL
dependencies.
Now, for the upstream patches functionality, I think it would be easier if
I actually posted my changes and we could compare on-list. I'll clean
them up and post them in the next couple of days.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"