Re: suggested pkglint change: error on missing comment for patch

[Bernd Ernesti <netbsd%lists.veego.de@localhost>]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 02:47:51AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 07:39:28PM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>  > I'd like pkglint to report errors from now on if a patch doesn't have
>  > a comment.
>  > 
>  > The comment should be one of:
>  > . upstream bugtracker link for bug report associated with this patch
>  > . upstream scm link, if patch is from (newer) upstream
>  > . comment explaining why this patch is needed for portability but not
>  >   fed upstream
> 
> While this is in general a good idea, I have some reservations.
> 
> Most packages probably don't have formal upstream bugtrackers. So I
> don't think you can enforce anything more than "some text"; maybe
> that's enough to accomplish something useful, maybe not.
> 
> Plus as things stand you need one comment per patch hunk, not one
> comment per file, because unrelated changes to the same source file go
> into the same patch file.
> 
> Also, it's probably better not to introduce any new barriers to fixing
> broken packages.
[..]

Having no comment what this patch should fix makes it nearly impossible
for some patches to update a package. A cvs log doesn't reveal why    
it was done, because it was either added in the first import or part
of a normal update without beeing mentioned.
So at least add a comment why this patch has to be modified.

Bernd