Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (116 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] uncertainties about patch packaging
On 05/06/2013 11:21 AM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Hi all, there are some minor issues with:

Firstly, it does not document the exact format I should use in the
.changes entry. The "Patch life cycle" section says:

Any of those stages needs to be mentioned in the .changes file,
including the file name of the patch. For example:

* Add package-awesomeness.patch: Makes package awesome

... but an example is not sufficient to document a format. It's not
clear whether documenting movement through the patch cycle in the
.changes file is supposed to be machine-parseable, or just readable by
humans. Either way, the requirements for conformity need to be more

It's also unclear how I should add a line

# PATCH-FIX-OPENSUSE fix-for-opensuse-specific-things.patch bnc#123456

when there is no bnc entry. If it's OK to omit the bnc# field, the
page should say that. Or if it's not, the page should explicitly say
that a bugzilla entry should be filed if one doesn't already exist.

Finally, the page is entitled 'guidelines', but if non-conformance is
grounds for rejecting a submitreq, I think 'guidelines' is too weak
and it really should be labelled as a 'policy'.

To my knowledge as a review team member, the patch markup guideline is not mandatory. It is recommended in general and several openSUSE projects and packagers follow it but it is not a decline reason.

And you are absolutely right that it is not complete yet. The current state is a result of good practice from the Gnome team. Still there's a lot to clarify, so thank you for starting this thread.
With kind regards,
Sascha Peilicke
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend├Ârffer HRB 16746 (AG N├╝rnberg)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >