Yes, I've figured this out meanwhile. I still see it as the proven packager's job to give some information before or at least while pushing a change that was neither announced, nor called for by a change proposal.
As you point out correctly, the new syntax just landed in rpm 4.18 (F37 up), so there is no proper grace period either. My solution is to go for `%autosetup` where possible and `%autopatch` with `-m`/`-M` where needed. This is in rpm >= 4.11 and therefore a much better solution than the one which got force pushed without having a chance to do the saner one. I had failed to notice that `-P` is supported on more versions - that could have been the replacement if there was a need to push a change, but rpm docs prefer the positional argument over the `-P` option. _______________________________________________ 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
