[systemd-devel] [PATCH] hwdb: ship ids-update.pl & sdio.ids in the release tarballs.
marcel at holtmann.org
Tue Mar 17 08:26:28 PDT 2015
>>> On 16 March 2015 at 23:15, Marcel Holtmann <marcel at holtmann.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Dimitri,
>>>>> This makes it easier to apply stable branch patches on top of the
>>>>> release tarball.
>>>>> Makefile.am | 4 +++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>> diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
>>>>> index 856accb..0ed35ac 100644
>>>>> --- a/Makefile.am
>>>>> +++ b/Makefile.am
>>>>> @@ -3877,7 +3877,9 @@ dist_udevhwdb_DATA = \
>>>>> EXTRA_DIST += \
>>>>> - units/systemd-hwdb-update.service.in
>>>>> + units/systemd-hwdb-update.service.in \
>>>>> + hwdb/ids-update.pl \
>>>>> + hwdb/sdio.ids
>>>> I do not think that these files belong in the tarball. Especially the sdio.ids is not something that should be in the tarball. If it is missing locally, a script can always download it rom systemd.git tree. That is where the source is for these and not the tarball.
>>>> If you want to apply patches from git, then you can always tell git to exclude these files and it will happily apply the rest of the patch. So I do not see a good enough reason to do this.
>>> I should be able to regenerate generated copies of code from things
>>> included in the tarball without network or git... I need this
>>> precisely because stable patches are patching sdio.ids... which is (a)
>>> missing (b) ids-update.pl is missing (c) the files that are generated
>>> with a&b are not updated....
>> (a) and (b) can be solved by telling 'patch' or 'git' to not apply
>> hunks to those files.
>> (c) sounds wrong to me. Whenever we change ids-update.pl and friends,
>> we also run them and commit the results to -git. So either you apply
>> the wrong patch (the ids-update.pl-path instead of the patch that
>> commits the results), or your haven't been looking closely enough. I
>> don't see why a distribution would be interested in fixes for
>> ids-update.pl? It should be ignored and never marked for back-porting.
>> Only if at the same run we also update the generated files, those
>> should be picked up.
> Looking at stable branch:
> sdio.ids was changed in
> but updated in a later commit
> So they do look up to date there.
> usb.ids does not appear to be in the source tree.
> To me this looks untidy, as preffered form of modification is not
> shipped in full neither in git, nor in the tarball. And I do need to
> modify them, the hwdb is too large and has too many things for my
> targets thus I'm looking at how to patch them out in a maintainable
that is pretty much your problem to solve if you do not want the full database. Why is that a stable tree issue? Especially since shrinking the database has nothing to do with ids-update.pl or sdio.ids.
> Why not just commit ids-update.pl / sdio.ids and generate the .hwdb
> files on $ make dist, or at autoreconf time?
Just tell patch or git to skip the hunks modifying ids-update.pl and sdio.ids. Problem solved.
More information about the systemd-devel