1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Importing%20RPM%20Spec%20File%20Syntax&In-Reply-To=%3C201101151359.42730.maarten.vanraes%40gmail.com%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="002162.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="002165.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax</H1>
<B>Maarten Vanraes</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Importing%20RPM%20Spec%20File%20Syntax&In-Reply-To=%3C201101151359.42730.maarten.vanraes%40gmail.com%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax">maarten.vanraes at gmail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Sat Jan 15 13:59:42 CET 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="002162.html">[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="002165.html">[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#2164">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#2164">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#2164">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#2164">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Op zaterdag 15 januari 2011 11:24:52 schreef Cazzaniga Sandro:
><i> Le 15/01/2011 11:08, Remy CLOUARD a écrit :
</I>><i> > Here’s a proposal:
</I>><i> > Patches must be named in a very explicit manner to make it very clear to
</I>><i> > what version it was originally applied. To that end, a patch needs to
</I>><i> > follow the convention of
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > [package_name]-[version]-[description].patch:
</I>><i> > * [package_name] is the name of the package it applies against, such
</I>><i> > as 'shadow-utils' or 'gnupg'
</I>><i> > * [version] is the version of the program this patch was developed
</I>><i> > against, such as 1.0. The name of the patch should not change, even
</I>><i> > when it is rediffed, because the version allow to see in a blink since
</I>><i> > when this patch has been there. If you happen to see a patch that does
</I>><i> > not apply anymore, and rediff it, ask the package maintainer if it has
</I>><i> > been sent upstream, and why it hasn’t been merged, and send it
</I>><i> > upstream if you think it should be merged.
</I>><i> > * [description] is a short description of the patch's purpose.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Example: foo-1.0-fix-str-fmt.patch for a patch that fixes string format
</I>><i> > errors
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I'm okay for naming patches as you say. It's clean and clear, we
</I>><i> understand well what a mistake they correspond.
</I>
i disagree with the patch naming: if you rediff a patch, i assume you test it
out too, which means it was 'developped' for the current version, and i would
like people to start using this version.
ie: rediffing is development too.
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="002162.html">[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="002165.html">[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#2164">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#2164">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#2164">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#2164">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
