From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002249.html | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002249.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002249.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002249.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002249.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..81deb13f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002249.html @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax

+ Michael scherer + misc at zarb.org +
+ Wed Jan 19 14:30:54 CET 2011 +

+
+ +
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 02:44:35PM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote:
+> On 15 January 2011 12:08, Remy CLOUARD <shikamaru at mandriva.org> wrote:
+> > Hi there,
+> >
+> > I just imported the RPM Spec File Syntax page in the wiki.
+> >
+> > It’s located here: http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=spec_syntax
+> >
+> > Please review this page as it’s one of the most important one for the
+> > beginning of the mentoring process, with the RPM Howto page (yet to be
+> > imported).
+> >
+> > Some comments on this page:
+> > - Patch naming:
+> >
+> > I’m not sure we should go that far for the patch naming policy, and in
+> > practice it’s not what I’ve seen up till now.
+> >
+> > Here’s a proposal:
+> > Patches must be named in a very explicit manner to make it very clear to
+> > what version it was originally applied. To that end, a patch needs to
+> > follow the convention of
+> > [package_name]-[version]-[description].patch:
+> >
+> >  * [package_name] is the name of the package it applies against, such
+> >  as 'shadow-utils' or 'gnupg'
+> >  * [version] is the version of the program this patch was developed
+> >  against, such as 1.0. The name of the patch should not change,
+> 
+> I don't agree, if you rediff the patch against version 2.0 the the
+> version in the patch name should change; one reason is, it can't be
+> applied to version 1.0 any more without restoring the old patch from
+> an older SVN rev. or rediffing it again.
+
+But that mean we lose history of svn ?
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+ + + + + + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1