Patches - Discussion

Jim Gifford lfs at
Mon May 3 15:02:46 PDT 2004

Tushar, Matthew and Readers of the Patch Mailing List,

    I'm getting a little concerned about that state of patches as I
explained to Matthew today on IRC. It seems that we are getting a lot of
patches, that should be sent up to the upstream maintainers. We are also
getting patches that are not mentioned in any LFS project, example the
recent gv patche. Matthew and I agree, that the patches project should have
the stipulation stating the patch must have an upstream status. Patches
should also only be related to LFS, BLFS, HLFS, BE-LFS, hints, and any other
LFS related project.

Does everyone agree ?

    It has been asked to me numerous times to use the following patch name
structure, (package name version "the same as the archive")-(brief
description)-(version).patch. The reason for this is to keep the packages
named the same as the archives and keep consistency. This was requested by
numerous folks using scripts to download patches and sources. So a patch
that is for cracklib would look like - cracklib,2.7-cleanup-1.patch -
because the archive is cracklib,2.7.tar.gz

Does everyone agree ?

  A new patch header is need to show the upstream status. Several of us who
create patches have added this to our patches recently. The new header would
look like this.

Submitted By:
Initial Package Version:
Upstream Status:


Submitted By: Jim Gifford (jim at linuxfromscratch dot org)
Date: 2004-04-25
Initial Package Version: 1.1.0
Origin: tcptrack developer
Upstream Status: Accepted
Description: Fixes Compile Issues with GCC 3.4

Does everyone agree ?

jim at
lfs at

LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986

FWD: 275410
IPKall: 360-968-1517

More information about the patches mailing list