[lfs-dev] Incorporating upstream patches

Nathan Coulson conathan at gmail.com
Sun Apr 13 22:51:58 PDT 2014

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:06:54PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I would like to get the opinion of the community.  Right now we have
>> four tickets:
>> #3537 MPFR-3.1.2 Patchlevel 5
>> #3536 Fix BC-1.06.95 bug
>> #3532 Readline-6.3 patchlevel 3
>> #3532 Bash-4.3 patchlevel 8
>> All of these call for adding patches from upstream.  My question is
>> whether it should be the policy of LFS to add these types of upstream
>> patches to the book when upstream does not feel the need to release a
>> new stable version to make these fixes.
>  I think we used to use _more_ upstream patches (not only bash and
> readline, but also vim ?).  I don't recall why we dropped them.
> Maybe Matt knows, if he is around.
>  I don't have any objection to using the latest patches for any
> package where upstream provides patches (I assume that most
> upstreams do not provide patches like this - if a bug is important
> enough, they make a new release).  As you say, monitoring the
> availability of new patches makes things harder.
>  Distro patches are a different matter entirely.  You didn't mention
> fedora, but like debian they cover many different situations which
> most of us won't hit.  Occasionally (more so in BLFS) debian or
> fedora have an important fix for a bug, whether a FTBFS (fails to
> build from source) or a new CVE.  But many of their patches (same
> with arch and gentoo) are distro-specific.
> ĸen
> --
> das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page

The vim ones were dropped as it was decided it was decided to treat
them as ongoing development features I believe.  Myself personally I
have never had problems using vim without the upstream patches.

At one time I recall (years ago now) unpatched bash resulted in large
problems (which hopefully is no longer the case).

If bash and readline work well enough (Let's say in the context of
LFS/BLFS and our userspace) without those patches, I would recommend
dropping them.  In the cases where there are problems we want to
address, we could cherry pick individual patches for specific fixes.
On the other hand, if the individual patches get out of control,
perhaps the patchset is not too bad.

I would prefer to see us using patches more from upstream instead of
distributions where it makes sense,  but in the case of distributions
it would probably be favorable to use fixes that can be merged
upstream.  (With the goal of using upstream unpatched someday).

I am less familiar with the MPFR patches and what they are for,  most
of what I wrote above is more based upon my experience with bash.

Nathan Coulson (conathan)
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Timezone: PST (-8)
Webpage: http://www.nathancoulson.com

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list