OSS-QM global patch repository

Robert Schwebel r.schwebel@pengutronix.de
Sat Mar 10 14:23:00 GMT 2007

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 04:23:46PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> That's why I want to bring things together. Virtually each distro
> has it's own patches. Many, many sysops also do.

True, and that will probably stay that way, because folks get their
problems out of sight.

> What we need is an central point for all folks and some QM mechs. 

Good idea, but I doubt it will work.

> Most important policies (for us) would be:
> * destdir installation (resspects either $DESTIR or $INSTALLDIR)
> * alternate toolchain (respects $CC + friends properly)
> * separate toolchains for host and target
> * sysroot-capable
> * deterministic build (no crazy guessing)

Important points, although I'm not sure what "normal distro" guys will
think about the last one.

> > IMHO the main question is: who will finance that effort. 
> For my site: partially my customers, partially my own idealism :)

Well, to some extent it is the same here; we need a local patch
mechanism in PTXdist to get our daily embedded projects done, but for
the long term I would be more than happy to see the patch load go down
instead of up.

> Yes, I know your repository is a good thing, already took lots
> of patches there :)
> Our current problem: we both have our repositories, each one for
> our needs. We both don't have the time to do the ugly maintenance
> works. 

In general: yes. But it's very important for us to have a well defined
patch stack; I would not feed some community patch stack into our
commercial projects, because it probably breaks things without us having
influence on it. So if there will be some collaboration, it must be in a
way that I can specify "this ptxdist patch qualifies for upstream" and
make it magically appear in a central patch tree.

Nevertheless: Somebody has to care about communication with the upstream
projects. I've just cleaned up some of the dotgnu makefiles, and it was
something like 4 weeks of work just to do it and discuss it with the
upstream maintainers; it is a big piece of politics, it is a lot of work
and you probably also need somebody with good community interaction. For
example, somebody who rants libtool would probably be sub optimal =8-)

> (the goverment regularily burns billions for never working
> IT projects, why can't they spend just a few positions for such
> things ?! ;-o)


> An way out: create an generic repository, which works well for 
> much, much more people than just our two parties. We first have 
> to spend some time in an good organisation and workflow, then 
> many things can be done by bots or futher aquired helpers. 
> (from time to time I've got an trainee who could come in here)

It needs experienced people to do things right. You cannot do it in
parallel to daytime work and you cannot let it do a trainee. At least I
would not automatically let patches from such a stack flow into our
professional trees...

 Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
 Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
   Handelsregister:  Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686
     Hannoversche Str. 2, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany
   Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |  Fax: +49-5121-206917-9

For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

More information about the crossgcc mailing list