On 06/27/2014 05:50 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-06-27 10:17, Till Maas wrote:
Yes, I missed this as well. Also IIRC the guidelines demand an patch
status comment for each patch in the spec file, so just adding patch
without noting why it is not upstreamable or information about
when/how
it was upstreamed is bad and should IMHO not be done by
provenpackagers.
When patching others' code, I generally follow the existing style; I
can tell you that *many* packages don't have these patch comments.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
The guidelines don't demand it but it is recommended
Thanks for digging out these links - This matches with my memory,
unfortuately I could not find them when responding eariler.
The intention of all this is to keep the amount of patches in Fedora low
and to "pay it back to upstreams" iff possible.
However, in many (most?) cases this is not possible or feasible.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
