Hello, Am Dienstag, 3. Februar 2015 schrieb Kyrill Detinov:
What is the rule for naming patches? I mean including or not a version of a source in the name.
Following https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Patches_guidelines#Patch_na ming "Do NOT use %{version} macro in Patch: line, specify the version by hand." A patch will look like foo-1.2.3-fix_something.patch.
Is it still valid?
The advice not to use the %{version} macro in a patch name is still valid, because otherwise you'd have to rename the patch each time the version number changes. Note that the guidelines doesn't say that you should or should not include the version number in the patch name. It only says that you should avoid using the %{version} macro.
I see a lot of patches without a version in their names.
I wouldn't call that a problem.
What is the right way? I prefer to have a version in a patch name to know that foo-1.2.4-fix_something.patch is applied for "foo = 1.2.4" and, possibly, for "foo > 1.2.4". And it isn't applied for "foo < 1.2.4".
Well, it depends ;-) Let's say you have a patch that fixes a bug in foo 1.2.4, and that bug is also fixed upstream in the next (not yet available) release. In this case, it makes sense to include the version number in the patch, for example foo-1.2.4-fix-crash.patch so that you can easily spot "outdated" and no longer needed patches. OTOH, I'd avoid the version number in patches that aren't meant to go upstream (for example some changes in a config file so that it better fits for openSUSE) and will probably stay in the openSUSE package forever. For example, foo-set-packager-to-zypper.patch makes more sense than foo-1.0.1-set-packager-to-zypper.patch which looks a bit strange when the package version number increases. Another option is to have a comment line for each patch in the spec, like I do in the AppArmor package. This has the advantage that it's easy to update (compared to hardcoding version information in the patch filename). That said - these are just my personal rules of thumb - if you like them, feel free to use them ;-) Oh, and it's a good thing that we don't have strong rules for every little detail. Common sense is enough, and in the end the package maintainer can use the naming scheme that fits his workflow best. Independent on the naming scheme - a package with 2 patches will be easy to maintain even if you have a "bugfix.patch" and "bugfix2.patch", and a package with 100 patches will be a maintenance nightmare even if you have self-explaining patch names ;-) Regards, Christian Boltz -- BUGS My programs never have bugs. They just develop random features. If you discover such a feature and you want it to be removed: please send me an email. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org