Re: Patches: make comments mandatory

[Julio Merino <jmmv%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Thomas Klausner <wiz%netbsd.org@localhost> 
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 08:25:12AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> That's basically fine, but I think formalism/machine-readability is not
>> that important.
>
> I'd like pkglint to be able to give reasonable output about patches.
> For this, some kind of formalism is necessary.
>
>> For config files, often upstream can be patched to spiff up configure,
>> and then we can just use it.  I've done that for quagga long ago.  So
>> "we need to munge for pkgsrc" and "upstream does not need changes" are
>> not quite the same.  But it's different from "upstream has a bug and
>> they'll definitely want this".
>
> True. Perhaps the example was not good enough, or there really is no
> reason to have pkgsrc-specific patches :)

Well, there is... sometimes upstream is so brain-dead that they won't
accept our patches -- even if reasonable enough to let things be
configurable.  See, e.g, the issue regarding default values for the
XDG paths.

-- 
Julio Merino