Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (158 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Package Markup / Package Tagging
  • From: Wolfgang Rosenauer <wolfgang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:05:18 +0200
  • Message-id: <4C82521E.7010504@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,

Am 04.09.2010 14:07, schrieb Bernhard Walle:
Am 04.09.2010 12:13, schrieb Marcus Rueckert:
On 2010-09-04 07:18:51 +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
Am 03.09.10 15:50, schrieb Dominique Leuenberger:


The line is as simple as:
- Type of Patch
- Patch filename
- Whom to address in case of questions re: the patch
And a short description.

Why don't you put such information in the patch header where it belongs?

it is easier to parse a few single line entries in spec files to create
stats, than tons of patch files.

Why?

Currently I have the needed information in my patch headers and I hate
to have even more cruft in the spec file. Its formatting is already
pretty unreadable (even more as autobuild thinks it has to reformat to
whatever it thinks is correct. This "thinking" has bugs since years.
(Or is this gone meanwhile? I stopped fixing the format probably a year
ago since every Factory commit broke it again).

Personally I like the KDE approach like in
http://old-en.opensuse.org/KDE/Patch_Annotation_Policy
better. It's similar to the style I use in mozilla nowadays.

The initial proposal with patch meta in the specfile doesn't convince
me. The mentioning of added and dropped patches in the changes makes
sense and usually I do that.
So I'm not sure if we can get an agreement between all Factory
contributors and if it's enforced then be warned about the consequences.
At least I'm not sure if I would like to follow that policy. Someone
else is invited to reformat my spec files for Factory but I might not
care anymore.

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

< Previous Next >