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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@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