Conan-center-index: specify patches in conandata.yaml

[SSE4]

it's often needed to specify patches to apply, and list of patches may vary from version to version.
we may use something like:

patches:
    1.70.0:
        - "001-xxx"
        - "002-xxxx"

it also would be nice to ensure every recipe uses the same format. consider use some sort of schema to validate conandata.yml has only allowed fields.

[lasote]

Could you provide how the patch looks like in the recipe using the conandata, might we consider some improvement?

[SSE4]

current code in boost:

    def source(self):
        patches = self.conan_data["patches"][self.version]["patches"]
        patches = patches.split(",") if patches else []
        tools.get(**self.conan_data["sources"][self.version])
        for patch in patches:
            tools.patch(patch_file=os.path.join("patches", patch),
                        base_path=os.path.join(self.source_folder, self._folder_name))

with YML:

patches:
  1.70.0:
    patches: "0001-beast-fix-moved-from-executor.patch,bcp_namespace_issues.patch,boost_build_qcc_fix_debug_build_parameter.patch,boost_core_qnx_cxx_provide___cxa_get_globals.patch,python_base_prefix.patch"
  1.71.0:
    patches: "bcp_namespace_issues.patch,boost_build_qcc_fix_debug_build_parameter.patch,boost_core_qnx_cxx_provide___cxa_get_globals.patch,python_base_prefix.patch"

[lasote]

@conan-io/barbarians Let's decide something here about this.
Any objection about specifying patches in the conandata.yml?
Agreed with the format?

patches:
    1.70.0:
        - "001-xxx"
        - "002-xxxx"

@memsharded about our conversation about "peeling" the conandata being exported to avoid creating new recipe revisions when only new version keys are added we would be ok, but only if we agree on the "standard" key and introduce checks of known keys in the CI.

[jgsogo]

Each item in the list of patches: is just a filename? is there a directory for patches? relative path from conanfile.py to the patch?

[SSE4]

another option - consider adopting patch series file approach (used by debian) https://linux.die.net/man/1/quilt

[jgsogo]

another option - consider adopting patch series file approach (used by debian) https://linux.die.net/man/1/quilt

I think it is overkill, don't you think so?

[uilianries]

@conan-io/barbarians Let's decide something here about this.
Any objection about specifying patches in the conandata.yml?
Agreed with the format?

patches:
    1.70.0:
        - "001-xxx"
        - "002-xxxx"

I agree, since we don't use some naming restriction. e.g. We only accept patch files using the follow pattern: "ddd-.*.patch"

[SSE4]

let's use the proposed format then (KISS) - looks simple and neat
in future maybe adding some checks to our conan center hook that patches are in right place and have right names (so they are always applied in right order)
P.S. .diif is also very common in addition to the .patch

[danimtb]

I like the approach and this also includes a "standard" patch folder to store the patches with the names indicated. That way this could evolve in the future into a built-in Conan tool

[lasote]

We propose this in case the patch is remote or local. The function to process this should be documented as a snippet, we could think later about creating a specific tool.

patches:
    1.70.0:
        -  "patch_file": "001-xxx"
           "base_path": "source_subfolder" 
        -  "url": XXX
           "checksum": XXX
           "base_path": "source_subfolder"

[uilianries]

When a package requires only one patch, you could optimize:

# conandata.yml
patches:
  "8.0.17":
    base_path: "source_subfolder"
    patch_file: "patches/0001-find-cmake.patch"

# conanfile.py
def build(self):
    tools.patch(**self.conan_data["patches"][self.version])

[Croydon]

Maybe we should keep it uniform no matter if it is a single patch or several.

By that way we would always get a list back or could maybe improve tools.patch() to support this as well. This would allow to manage patches truly in conandata.yml without code changes (adding or removing a loop like for patch in patches:)

[lasote]

As I said: we could think later about creating a specific tool. Let's start with everything manual.