Proposed Changes to Patches Repository

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at
Wed Dec 8 20:50:35 PST 2004

Jim Gifford wrote:

> Hi everyone.
> Since Tushar has been busy, I have assumed control of the patches 
> project with his blessing. Tushar will still be assisting as time 
> permits. I would like to publicaly thank him for his support.
> I have plans for the patches project that will effect everyone. I 
> would like your feedback on the proposed changes to the patches 
> repository.
> 1 - SVN Structure
>    Implement a structure that is easier to navigate and secure for all 
> developers
>    control of their own patches.
>              Visual of proposed structure
>                   trunk --> lfs {LFS Related Patches} Responsible 
> Party LFS Editors
>                   blfs {BLFS Related Patches} Responsible Party BLFS 
> Editors
>                   hlfs {HLFS Related Patches} Responsible Party HLFS 
> Editors
>                   hints {Hints Related Patches} Responsible Party 
> Patch and Hints Maintainers
>                   other {Patches not in above categories} Responsible 
> Party Patch Maintainers
>       Under this SVN Change, the xLFS maintainers, would control their 
> patches, and
>       would be responsible for making sure they meat the patches 
> projects guidelines
>       which would be set by Patch Maintainers, Matt, Bruce, and Robert.
>       This would also mean the elimination of private patches 
> archives, since you would
>        have full control over the patches for your own books. As the 
> patches maintainer
>        I would enforce header policies only over the LFS, BLFS, and 
> HLFS patches, everything
>        else would be under the xLFS leaders control.
>        Hints and other patches, would fall under my control.

This is fine, but I still want the subset of patches that are referenced 
in BLFS to be in svn and available in a separate directory. There are 
other patches for older or newer versions or packages that are not in 
BLFS that will fit nicely in the overall patches repository.

> 2 - Online Structure
>       The additional of HLFS and hints patches. To the website menu. 
> *-Minor Issue
> 3 - Adding Identifier for Architecture into the Patches Header, since 
> we are starting to
>     see a lot of patches for different architectures, we should 
> specify the architecture in
>     the header somewhere, someone said it was there, this may be a 
> mute issue. 

This seems reasonable.  We can put a general comment in BLFS to see the 
patches repository for non-x86 archetectures.   I don't see putting 
links to all the patches for different architectures in the book.

  -- Bruce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list