Le mer. 15 avr. 2020 à 13:34, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 5:32 AM Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
...
> There is one thing I really dislike about the scheme (one it
didn't
> notice when I took a brief look at it weeks ago; sorry): There are no
> individual patches anymore in dist-git/the srpm and that afaics violates
> the packaging guidelines.
>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_applying_patches
>
> ```
> The files MUST then be checked into the Fedora Package revision control
> system […]. Storing the files in this way allows people to use standard
> tools to visualize the changes between revisions of the files and track
> additions and removals without a layer of indirection […].
> ```
> There are other rules in the patch section that afaics are violated.
> Were those violation discussed and blessed by the
> Fedora Packaging Committee or FESCo?
I don't think the split out patches "rule" is being violated here.
They changed the source tarball to one generated from the git tree and
they don't have any patches at the dist-git level at all. Several
other packages in Fedora already do this, such as anaconda.
So it means should one single line patch should be changed, you need
to re-upload a 100M tarball to the fedora lookaside cache?
I understand the benefit to have an upstream source tree as a primary
origin for kernel patch development. But what is the reason behind
this process in particular ?
It would have been easier to only generate a full fedora diff against
the original upstream tree (using a commit-id that can also be
generated with gitlab with A PR).
Like how I expect it's done with the patch-5.7.0-redhat.patch.
Then keep using the original upstream tarballs. (linux-M.tar.xz and
patch-M-m.xz)
I'm sure that in some cases, (minor patch update) there is even not
have to change the fedora diff.
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)