One thing to note is that the new format doesn’t work with EPEL
releases; I had to revert to the %patchN style for them.
On 29 Mar 2023, at 3:53, Florian Festi wrote:
On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?
Yes, see %patch section on
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html
> I got a push by a proven packager to one of the packages which I
> maintain, commit subject and changelog entry "Fix deprecated patch
> rpm macro". It contains no explanation and no reference whatsoever. I
> didn't find any heads up notice, nor info in the packaging
> guidelines, but I didn't try too hard - because it's not my job.
>
> I mean: One person is doing that push. Is it too much to ask to get
> at least the slightest bit of reference or communication before or
> into a push which probably affects hundreds of people? If not out of
> courtesy then out of mere common sense of efficiency?
>
> On the technical side, I'd be interested why this is better (fewer
> macros?) and which releases can take it, and what are the
> recommendations for `PatchN:`-lines (with or without N), and why (or
> whether) the recommendation isn't to go for `%autosetup` or
> `%autopatch` - maybe all answered in the missing reference.
Those macros are an ugly hack and RPM upstream rather had them go
away.
The deprecation suggests a one to one replacement. Ofc using the use
of
%autosetup or %autopatch is encouraged but that kinda out of scope of
the deprecation.
Florian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue