Subject: Re: [change request] pattern for patch filenames
To: Roland Illig <email@example.com>
From: Alistair Crooks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/12/2004 09:20:35
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:23:00PM +0200, Roland Illig wrote:
> Roland Illig wrote:
> >I would like the pattern for patch filenames to be changed. In general
> >it is the shell pattern "patch-*", but there are two occurrences of the
> >AWK pattern "patch-[A-Za-z0-9]+". I would like to have the underscore
> >("_") included in the allowed letters.
> >With this change we could name the patch files after the files they
> >patch ("patch-src_inode_c"), not with some arbitrarily chosen number
> I'll summarize the discussion we had so far:
> Having the underscore character in the patch name pattern:
> - I (Roland) would like it
> (mainly to automatize the creation of patches)
> - lukem thought this idea to be a good one
I'm coming to this late, but there are other alternatives to the binary one
1. If we're going to split patches out into one per source file, then
I quite like the split(1)-style names. Simple, easy, and works quite
well. All that filename-mangling will do is force me to find out how
the name has been mangled.
2. abs is very fond of using a single file to hold all the patches,
and, to a certain extent, I can see where he's coming from. I've used
this in the past, and it works just fine. (When you're adding a
patch, you add it to the end of the file, removing any previous patch
that was in there).
3. No-one has yet explained to me why we should do this (and, frankly,
"because FreeBSD has done it" always carries with it lemming-like
images in my mind. And, yes, I know that Hollywood has given lemmings
a bad name)
> Naming scheme for patch files:
> - grant would rather name the patches by function
I'm not at all sure that this would scale well.
> So we have two different discussion points here. Are there any opinions
> against allowing the underscore in patch file names? If not, I would
> like this change to happen, as I already have many packages that would
> immediately build under Linux if only the patch names were allowed. :)
Well, yes, I have an objection, in principle, to underscores. I don't
like them. And I don't like them in filenames. Or package names. I
don't understand why something will only build under Linux with
embedded underscores. Please explain why this is the case.
> The other point (the naming scheme) is important, too. I noticed that
> with encoding the file name as the patch name the order in which the
> patches are applied only depends on the file name, not on the package
> maintainer's opinion. There might be problems with dependent files, such
> as ./configure and ./configure.ac, as well as lex and yacc files.
At least with split(1) style names, you are guaranteed a strict
ordering. How does moving to mangled names make this any more
correct? I can see more problems in this regard with mangled names.
Now I'm obviously missing something here, but what is the problem
you're trying to fix?