Closed #2209 as completed via c18f62e7b0630394e0bf2ccee0239a0cddd93d0a.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2209#event-8244184876
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
> Feel free to file an RFE on RHEL to have it considered.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161293
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2209#issuecomment-1384139490
You are receiving this because you are
Feel free to file an RFE on RHEL to have it considered.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2209#issuecomment-1383931679
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Seeing your PR and out of curiosity, is there chance to get this into RHEL?
That could help with adoption ...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2209#issuecomment-1383915702
You are receiving this because you are
So to be clear, `%patch 1` only works as expected in rpm >= 4.18. Prior to
that, it would attempt to apply patches 0 and 1. Go figure :roll_eyes:
The most compatible form by far is `%patch -P1` which AIUI works in every rpm
version out there, only it's not the preferred form for other reasons
Thanks for filing, seems I had already forgotten how utterly crazy the compat
story was. See commit 02b8d8dccc0f045b0ebf81785cf6ad1056cf550e.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2209#issuecomment-1262103211
You are
It would be nice to have the `%patch 1` syntax documented, if this is our
future.
BTW I'd be also interested when this was actually introduced, so I know what is
the backward compatibility.
P.S. I don't want to hijack #2205 more then I did, so creating separate ticket
--
Reply to this email
