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-le...@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
