Closed #2205 as completed via #2730.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2205#event-10788055422
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
> Hey, wait... those numbers don't add up. If there are 6300 `PatchN`-packages,
> and 3525 use `%patchN` or `%patch N`, then at most 2775 are using
> `%autosetup`.
It is possible to utilize both %autosetup and %patch (admittedly somewhat
unusual):
```
%autosetup
%if 0%{?somecond}
%patch93 -R
(this is "handsfree" item because the aforementioned, ah, specialty prevents
all sorts of interesting developements)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2205#issuecomment-1718802277
You are receiving this because you are
The %autosetup number is indeed total packages using it, whether they currently
have patches or not (because that's a situation that can and does change
release by release). This ticket is about %prep though, lets keep the %patch
discussion in #2209 (the compat info is already there btw)
--
> For some stats, out of 22000+ packages in Fedora, about 6300 have Patch
> declarations, of which roughly 3500 are still using the `%patch1` style
> syntax. and a whopping 25 are using other variants, including defaulting to 0
> and using a combo of -P and positional arguments etc. The rest
Doesn't help that [the only
example](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_support)
(end of that section) of `%patch` usage that I can find in the Fedora
Packaging Guidelines still uses `%patch0`. Seems this memo really hasn't been
distributed widely enough.
Yes, and there will be. I actually planned one for 4.18 already but withdrew
it, didn't have the energy to fight that battle just now :sweat_smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2205#issuecomment-1260412086
You are
> `%patch1` style syntax will forever need pre-processing to turn it into
> `%patch 1` basically.
:eyes: This is new to me. Could there be warning that `%patch1` is obsolete?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
There are some "interesting" gotchas in this direction. I have draft patches to
turn %patch and %setup into actual macros so they get processed with the normal
spec readLine() machinery but as long as the macro engine cannot handle
multiple options of the same type, this is a no-go. The other,
%prep is very special. It is first parsed completely and only then are `%setup`
and `%patch` replaced. While these two need to do special things they should
still be internal macros that are processed right when they are encountered.
One side effect of this is #1870
--
Reply to this email
10 matches
Mail list logo
