[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax
anaselli at linux.it
Sat Jan 15 20:15:16 CET 2011
> follow the convention of
> * [package_name] is the name of the package it applies against, such
> as 'shadow-utils' or 'gnupg'
Sorry I can't get this... I mean i'm packaging foo, the spec file
is for foo the patch is under foo svn directroy, is invoked by
foo.spec... so what's the matter in that?
> * [version] is the version of the program this patch was developed
> against, such as 1.0.
hmm in a first view i seconded it, but after a while again i can't see really
why. I mean if a patch has been added into version 1.0 you can only
know when has been added not if it's still valid.
> The name of the patch should not change, even
> when it is rediffed, because the version allow to see in a blink since
But here if you changed the patch because of rediffing, it's not true that is
for version 1.0, but for the new one. Otoh changing the name, means moving or
deleting-adding a new patch under svn... So again no reason to add this field
-imo of course-.
> 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.
Good point. That should be always asked for since the patch was added by
the packagers, but in my experienced i had packages in which passing upstream
patches was very hard if not impossible.
> * [description] is a short description of the patch's purpose.
iirc there is a -b option to be passed to %patch in which you can add
a string and again iirc that was used by packagers for a brief description
%patch0 -b string_format
is at least clear as your example
That also creates, iirc again, files used in patch with their name and
string_format suffix (e.g. foo.c -> foo.c.string_format or similar).
> Example: foo-1.0-fix-str-fmt.patch for a patch that fixes string format
in both cases your and mine (str-fmt and string_format) it's clear for
the one who added the patch not the one who handles the package after,
because the real point is not the patch itself but the reason of submitting it
Maybe some comments concerning the patch and the patch reason could be
clearer than few chars in a string name :)
Just my thought of course :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Mageia-dev