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

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Leonardo Taccari <leonardo1990%gmail.com@localhost> writes:

> 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
>> . your idea here, if any?
>> 
>> I don't want to rototill all packages for this, but new packages and
>> package updates should include this.
>> 
>> Why I want this:
>> . to increase the chance of patches being fed upstream
>> . to make it easier tracking this
>> . to make it easier to check what a patch is good for
>> 
>> Comments?
>
> Sometimes to understand patches without comments could take a lot of
> minutes, e.g. when a MAINTAINER try to update a package maintained by
> someone else.

More frequent is the case, when MAINTAINER is pkgsrc-users or doesn't respond.

> However, if the patch is very trivial and hasn't got a comment should it
> be reported as error too? (like the test(1) one in The pkgsrc guide:
> http://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/components.html#components.patch.structure )

I think we could have some standard words to express why this should be
patched (with proper reference to POSIX or whatever standard, or examples
of systems, where it is needed). Simple link to pkgsrc guide may be enough.


-- 
HE CE3OH...