Subject: Re: Names of the patch files
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <tech-pkg@NetBSD.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 04/19/2006 23:03:09
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:20:22PM +0200, Georg Schwarz wrote:
> Am 19.04.2006 um 22:10 schrieb firstname.lastname@example.org:
> >I'd suggest to following rules, if we want rules at all:
> >(1) Patches which are part of the normal package building are named
> I'd suggest to add the following aspects:
> * patches start with patch-aa, then continue with patch-ab, patch-ac,
This is not always optimal, check e.g. the DragonFly patches for
Mozilla. I explicitly started from a different letter to isolate them
and make them easier to submit upstream (Thanks, ghen :-)).
> * When an existing patch becomes no longer necessary and is removed
> this does not affect the names of the other existing patches, not
> even if such patches are modified later on
Jup, I think we all agree on this.
> * When a new patch is created, it is to be named as to fill existing
> gaps in the naming order created by previously removed patches as
> long as such gaps exist (at least that's how I think it has been done
> so far)
This is not always a good idea. If you want to have a patch included
both in HEAD and stable, it makes a lot sense to use the same name.
> * Each patch should modify only a single source file; in order to
> modify several source files, multiple patches should be used.
Good idea, that applies almost always. Exception would be (3) from the