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/20110119/002250.html | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 104 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002250.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002250.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002250.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002250.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b63b410a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110119/002250.html @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax

+ Thomas Backlund + tmb at iki.fi +
+ Wed Jan 19 14:58:59 CET 2011 +

+
+ +
Michael scherer skrev 19.1.2011 15:30:
+> 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 ?
+
+svn mv old_patch_name new_patch_name
+
+and then update new_patch_name to apply correctly.
+
+--
+Thomas
+
+ + + + + + + + +
+

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