On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 17:21:07 -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 11/21/2014 01:41 PM, Laine Stump wrote: > > On 11/21/2014 12:20 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote: > >> With this change, any patch declared in libvirt.spec with Patch[0-9]* is > >> automatically applied in %prep. Unlike with the standard %patch[0-9]*, > >> patches are applied with "git am" to avoid some unexpected results. > >> However, as a result of this, all patches must be in the right format > >> for "git am" to be able to apply them; they should ideally be generated > >> from git using "git format-patch". > > > > I've tried this out in the netcf specfile and it works well there too. > > So a functional ACK from me. Someone else may have comments on the finer > > details. > > > > (The one thing I wonder about is this - once this patch is in, git will > > be required for a build even if there are no patches beyond the original > > tarball. I don't know if this concerns anyone or not...) > > Doesn't bother me :) Anyone liable to be developing rpms can be assumed > to know about git by now. > > >> +if [ $COUNT -gt 0 ]; then > >> + xargs git am <$PATCHLIST || exit 1 > > > > This is the first I noticed it doesn't use git am -3 (which I always > > use), but since that option would require the upstream git history to be > > available, I guess that is pointless here anyway :-) > > Also, _not_ using -3 forces the patch application to be a bit stricter > (nothing to 3-way fuzz against), so it is actually desirable as proof > that the patches were generated correctly. > > I'm not seeing any problems in the patch either, and it's had some > runtime testing in downstream RHEL builds already, so ACK. Pushed, thanks. Jirka -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list