Re: RPM 4.19 soon in Factory (packaging changes inside)
On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 13:56 +0100, Ana Guerrero Lopez via openSUSE Factory wrote:
The %patch one is rather simple and results in a build failure; monitoring your devel packages should give you hints very soon if your package is impacted. We created submit requests for most, if not all, packages affected by that in the last months.
Shouldn't this be extended to sources as well? There can be more than one Source entry after all and Source will work as well as Source0, Source1, Source2 etc. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this change. It will result in unnecessary FTBFS. Adrian
On Monday 2024-01-22 12:21, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz via openSUSE Factory...:
On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 13:56 +0100, Ana Guerrero Lopez via openSUSE Factory wrote:
The %patch one is rather simple and results in a build failure; monitoring your devel packages should give you hints very soon if your package is impacted. We created submit requests for most, if not all, packages affected by that in the last months.
Shouldn't this be extended to sources as well? There can be more than one Source entry after all and Source will work as well as Source0, Source1, Source2 etc.
But there is no %source2 macro that would be affected, just %{SOURCE:2} (parsed differently, suppose?).
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this change. It will result in unnecessary FTBFS.
AIUI, %patch2 and %patch3 are technically two different macros, which $sucks, and the parser had to take turns and twists to recognize them as one and the same (well, %patch -P 2 vs %patch -P 3).
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:22 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <adrian.glaubitz@suse.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 13:56 +0100, Ana Guerrero Lopez via openSUSE Factory wrote:
The %patch one is rather simple and results in a build failure; monitoring your devel packages should give you hints very soon if your package is impacted. We created submit requests for most, if not all, packages affected by that in the last months.
Shouldn't this be extended to sources as well? There can be more than one Source entry after all and Source will work as well as Source0, Source1, Source2 etc.
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this change. It will result in unnecessary FTBFS.
The point of this change is so that %PATCHN can eventually behave like %SOURCEN (point to the path of the patch file) rather than being masked by a macro that applies the patch. It also allows %prep to be a completely normal scriptlet like the other phases. This warning has been emitted since RPM 4.18, too. And it doesn't affect you if you use %autosetup or %setup + %autopatch. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
Am 22.01.24 um 12:30 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:22 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <adrian.glaubitz@suse.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 13:56 +0100, Ana Guerrero Lopez via openSUSE Factory wrote:
The %patch one is rather simple and results in a build failure; monitoring your devel packages should give you hints very soon if your package is impacted. We created submit requests for most, if not all, packages affected by that in the last months. Shouldn't this be extended to sources as well? There can be more than one Source entry after all and Source will work as well as Source0, Source1, Source2 etc.
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this change. It will result in unnecessary FTBFS.
The point of this change is so that %PATCHN can eventually behave like %SOURCEN (point to the path of the patch file) rather than being masked by a macro that applies the patch. It also allows %prep to be a completely normal scriptlet like the other phases.
This warning has been emitted since RPM 4.18, too. And it doesn't affect you if you use %autosetup or %setup + %autopatch.
Wait, we are changing the behavior of %patchN, too? That's not how I understood the announcement. I thought only %patch without any number and argument would be affected. ben@skylab:~/src/osc/bmwiedemann/openSUSE> git grep -E '%patch[0-9]+$' | wc -l 1977 - Ben
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 8:00 AM Ben Greiner <code@bnavigator.de> wrote:
Am 22.01.24 um 12:30 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:22 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <adrian.glaubitz@suse.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 13:56 +0100, Ana Guerrero Lopez via openSUSE Factory wrote:
The %patch one is rather simple and results in a build failure; monitoring your devel packages should give you hints very soon if your package is impacted. We created submit requests for most, if not all, packages affected by that in the last months.
Shouldn't this be extended to sources as well? There can be more than one Source entry after all and Source will work as well as Source0, Source1, Source2 etc.
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this change. It will result in unnecessary FTBFS.
The point of this change is so that %PATCHN can eventually behave like %SOURCEN (point to the path of the patch file) rather than being masked by a macro that applies the patch. It also allows %prep to be a completely normal scriptlet like the other phases.
This warning has been emitted since RPM 4.18, too. And it doesn't affect you if you use %autosetup or %setup + %autopatch.
Wait, we are changing the behavior of %patchN, too? That's not how I understood the announcement. I thought only %patch without any number and argument would be affected.
ben@skylab:~/src/osc/bmwiedemann/openSUSE> git grep -E '%patch[0-9]+$' | wc -l 1977
Yes, that's been deprecated since RPM 4.19. It will be unsupported in RPM 4.20. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
participants (4)
-
Ben Greiner -
Jan Engelhardt -
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz -
Neal Gompa