On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 14:41 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2009, at 4:38, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, those comments in the patches are quite informative, like "libtool > >> sucks". > >> > >> Seriously, this "comment about the patch in the specfile" is a > >> packaging requirement, not a personal request. > >> > >> > > > > With git style patches (and others) where there is lots of context and info > > in the patch file itself, duplicating it into the spec file is rather > > pointless. Let's have some thinking about the guidelines instead of blind > > following. The guideline is there so that we don't just have raw diffs > > without any context. > > > > Then I would say, let's have a look at the comments of gcc's patches > before blindly believing in that they all have explanatory comments in > them. Many don't. Some do, but those comments are sometimes 2 word > comments such as the one given above. > > I fail to see the consistency here. > > Orcan > Whether they do or don't have the comments wasn't what I was replying to. Whether the comments could exist in the patch files or whether they are required to be in the .spec file is the issue I was addressing. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
