Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (158 mails)

[Reinhard Max <max@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 at 15:50, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:

> The line is as simple as:
> - Type of Patch

will there be a list of patch types to select from or will the patch 
type be a free form string?

> - Patch filename

I think the patch name should not be repeated. It is already mentioned 
in the respective "Patch:" tag and given a per spec file unique number 
which the markup line(s) can refer to.

> - Whom to address in case of questions re: the patch
> And a short description.

Putting this all on a single line could easily violate the "lines 
should not exceed 80 chars" rule if the description requires more than 
a few words. So it should be allowed to continue the description on 
the following lines and maybe even mandatory to start the description 
on a separate line.

I'd suggest a convention that puts the additonal information next to 
the respective "Patch:" Tag, e.g. like this:

Patch0: foo-bar.patch
#P0:    INTEGRATION <packager@xxxxxxxxxxxx> description 
#P0     description description

Patch1: foo-baz.patch
#P1:    BUGFIX <hacker@xxxxxxxxxxx>
#P1     description description description
#P1     continued description

Another option would be to put type and person above the actual Patch 
tag:

#P2:    ENHANCEMENT <hacker@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Patch3: foo-baz.patch
#P3     description description description
#P3     continued description

Unfortunately rpmbuild doesn't accept comments at the end of Patch: 
lines, otherwise we could do it this way:

Patch4: foo-bar.patch # SECURITY <dontcare@xxxxxxx>
#P4     description description description
#P4     continued description


cu
        Reinhard
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx