Hello, Am Freitag, 31. August 2012 schrieb Philipp Thomas:
The most usefull requirement would IMO be that patches were annotated as is required for our kernels, i.e. a From line, date and and brief summary plus the name and address of the person that added the patch.
Well, it depends ;-) I usually use a one-line patch description in the spec (no, not in the "official" patch tagline format) that gives a short summary about what the patch does and its upstream status (for example "sent upstream $date", "taken from upstream svn/git/bzr $revision","openSUSE only"). This one-line description is usually enough, at least for small patches. The big advantage of using such a one-line description is that it is inside the spec file and gives a very quick (and still useful) overview about all patches in a package. If you have (only) verbose descriptions in the patch file, you'll have to open all patches to get an overview about what the patches do. You'll of course get more details, but it's harder to get an overview about all patches in the package. I'd propose: - have one-line patch tags in the spec next to the Patch: line (even if the patch contains a more verbose description) - add a more verbose description to long and/or difficult to understand patches (benchmark: will you understand the patch if you read it a year later? If not, add a verbose description ;-) Regards, Christian Boltz -- Planung ist der Ersatz des Zufalls durch den Irrtum. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org