Packaging question: Backport patch or use newer commit?

Packaging question: Backport patch or use newer commit?

[Zhu Zihao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 563 bytes --]

Hi everybody. I' m packaging digikam(https://digikam.org). A free photo management software from KDE project. There're 2 dependecies missing from current Guix(qtav & libksane)


I tried to package qtav(https://github.com/wang-bin/QtAV/) first, but it's latest release(v1.13.0) failed to build with Qt 5.14. And it was fixed in https://github.com/wang-bin/QtAV/commit/5abba7f0505e75fc. The question is: "Should I backport this fix to v1.13.0 or just use this commit to build qtav?"


If there're some guidelines on this, please tell me, thanks a lot!


--


Zihao

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1264 bytes --]

Re: Packaging question: Backport patch or use newer commit?

[Leo Famulari]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 12:04:11AM +0800, Zhu Zihao wrote:
> Hi everybody. I' m packaging digikam(https://digikam.org). A free photo management software from KDE project. There're 2 dependecies missing from current Guix(qtav & libksane)
> 
> 
> I tried to package qtav(https://github.com/wang-bin/QtAV/) first, but it's latest release(v1.13.0) failed to build with Qt 5.14. And it was fixed in https://github.com/wang-bin/QtAV/commit/5abba7f0505e75fc. The question is: "Should I backport this fix to v1.13.0 or just use this commit to build qtav?"
> 
> 
> If there're some guidelines on this, please tell me, thanks a lot!

In general, we try to only package what upstream considers the "latest
release".

If the latest release doesn't work, we try to fix it in the smallest way
that we can.

So, in this case, that would mean trying to apply the patch you
mentioned to the 1.13.0 release. If that works, great.

Otherwise, we have to also consider the value of our own time, and it
might be best to build the software based on the commit itself.

Does that help?

Re:Re: Packaging question: Backport patch or use newer commit?

[Zhu Zihao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1310 bytes --]

Thanks for your help! I back port that patch and build succesfully now. That patch is small enough so I sure it's suitable for backport.





















At 2020-09-13 00:35:10, "Leo Famulari" <leo@famulari.name> wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 12:04:11AM +0800, Zhu Zihao wrote:
>> Hi everybody. I' m packaging digikam(https://digikam.org). A free photo management software from KDE project. There're 2 dependecies missing from current Guix(qtav & libksane)
>> 
>> 
>> I tried to package qtav(https://github.com/wang-bin/QtAV/) first, but it's latest release(v1.13.0) failed to build with Qt 5.14. And it was fixed in https://github.com/wang-bin/QtAV/commit/5abba7f0505e75fc. The question is: "Should I backport this fix to v1.13.0 or just use this commit to build qtav?"
>> 
>> 
>> If there're some guidelines on this, please tell me, thanks a lot!
>
>In general, we try to only package what upstream considers the "latest
>release".
>
>If the latest release doesn't work, we try to fix it in the smallest way
>that we can.
>
>So, in this case, that would mean trying to apply the patch you
>mentioned to the 1.13.0 release. If that works, great.
>
>Otherwise, we have to also consider the value of our own time, and it
>might be best to build the software based on the commit itself.
>
>Does that help?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1801 bytes --]