[systemd-devel] [PATCH] hwdb: ship ids-update.pl & sdio.ids in the release tarballs.

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:43:18PM -0700, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Zbyszek,
> 
> >>>>> 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 = \
> >>>>>>>     hwdb/70-touchpad.hwdb
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 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:
> >>> 
> >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd-stable/log/hwdb?h=v219-stable
> >>> 
> >>> sdio.ids was changed in
> >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd-stable/commit/hwdb?h=v219-stable&id=c10e229f8222b92117ba38045ddb3e4d7951244a
> >>> 
> >>> but updated in a later commit
> >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd-stable/commit/hwdb?h=v219-stable&id=9ac622b00ca23f9d01e0ff0c944130be8dc3a0e9
> >>> 
> >>> 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
> >>> way.
> >> 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > I'll apply the patch, but with a slightly different motivation.
> > 
> > [L]GPL requires commercial entities distributing a modified version of
> > the program to provide full source in the preferred form for modification,
> > including all scripts used for building. This includes sdio.ids and
> > ids-update.pl. We should make it easy to follow the our licensing, so
> > we should include those files in our tarball to make it directly
> > redistributable.
> 
> that is just making stuff up.
Where was I wrong?

> Are you now also including usb.ids?
We probably should

Zbyszek