Re: rules for [crosstool] patch files?

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   out of curiosity, is there a short but sweet set of rules for
> submitting patch files for crosstool?
>
>   as in, what's the format for the *name* of the patch file?  should
> it contain the name of the software against which it's patched, and or
> the version number?  as in, choices:
>
> 	cross-gprof.patch
> 	binutils-cross-gprof.patch
> 	binutils-2.16.1-cross-gprof.patch

The latter is preferred.

>   and what about dealing with new versions?  if i have a file, say,
> glibc-2.3.4-rday.patch, and this happens to still patch against
> glibc-2.3.5 (but perhaps not cleanly), should i just copy it into the
> glibc-2.3.5 directory because it still works?

Yes, if it applies cleanly.

>   on the other hand, if i get ambitious and rediff it to make it apply
> perfectly cleanly, then i'm thinking i should rename with the prefix
> "glibc-2.3.5..." since it's obviously not the same patch file.

Exactly.

The other style guidelines for patches in the crosstool patch
repository are:

Only patches that would be acceptable to the upstream maintainers,
and which fix bugs (as opposed to add features) are
allowed (except in special circumstances)

The patch should include a Signed-off-by: header from you,
and any other people who put a Signed-off-by: header on it already; see
http://kerneltrap.org/node/3929

The patch should begin with links to the bugzilla entry
and key mailing list post that discusses it,
and (if it came from CVS or SVN) the URL in CVS or SVN
it was downloaded from, and the changelist description

The patch should include the 'From:', 'Subject:', 'Date:', and 'Message-Id:'
fields from the email it came from, if any

- Dan

--
What does Linux need to succeed on the desktop?  See http://kegel.com/linux/comfort

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com