Hi Dimitri, >>> On 16 March 2015 at 23:15, Marcel Holtmann <[email protected]> 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. Regards Marcel _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
