Le 15/01/2011 11:08, Remy CLOUARD a écrit : > Here’s a proposal: > Patches must be named in a very explicit manner to make it very clear to > what version it was originally applied. To that end, a patch needs to > follow the convention of > [package_name]-[version]-[description].patch: > > * [package_name] is the name of the package it applies against, such > as 'shadow-utils' or 'gnupg' > * [version] is the version of the program this patch was developed > against, such as 1.0. The name of the patch should not change, even > when it is rediffed, because the version allow to see in a blink since > when this patch has been there. If you happen to see a patch that does > not apply anymore, and rediff it, ask the package maintainer if it has > been sent upstream, and why it hasn’t been merged, and send it > upstream if you think it should be merged. > * [description] is a short description of the patch's purpose. > > Example: foo-1.0-fix-str-fmt.patch for a patch that fixes string format > errors > I'm okay for naming patches as you say. It's clean and clear, we understand well what a mistake they correspond.
-- Sandro Cazzaniga IRC: Kharec (irc.freenode.net) Twitter: @Kharec