[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax

[Maarten Vanraes]

Op zaterdag 15 januari 2011 11:24:52 schreef Cazzaniga Sandro:
> Le 15/01/2011 11:08, Remy CLOUARD a écrit :
> > 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, even
> >   when it is rediffed, because the version allow to see in a blink since
> >   when this patch has been there. If you happen to see a patch that does
> >   not apply anymore, and rediff it, ask the package maintainer if it has
> >   been sent upstream, and why it hasn’t been merged, and send it
> >   upstream if you think it should be merged.
> >   * [description] is a short description of the patch's purpose.
> > 
> > Example: foo-1.0-fix-str-fmt.patch for a patch that fixes string format
> > errors
> 
> I'm okay for naming patches as you say. It's clean and clear, we
> understand well what a mistake they correspond.

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.