Re: %patchN deprecated?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 3/29/23 18:58, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Florian Festi wrote:
On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?

Yes, see %patch section on
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html

Quoting that:

     %patch is used to apply patches on top of the just unpacked
     pristine sources. Historically it supported multiple strange
     syntaxes and buggy behaviors, which are no longer
     maintained. To apply patch number 1, the following are
     recognized:

         %patch 1 (since rpm >= 4.18)
         %patch -P1 (all rpm versions)
         %patch1 (deprecated, do not use)

     For new packages, the positional argument form 1) is
     preferred. For maximal compatibility use 2). Both forms can
     be used to apply several patches at once, in the order they
     appear on the line. The third form where the number is a
     part of the directive is deprecated and should not be used
     anymore.

Which gets to Michael's question "which releases can take
it?"

Changing `%patch1` to `%patch 1` limits support to Fedora 37
and above, unless this has been backported to older Fedora
and/or RHEL rpm?  Until it's supported by all current Fedora
and RHEL releases, it's not a change I'd want in the
packages I maintain.  I'd have to go with `%patch -P1`
(anywhere that %autosetup / %autopatch wasn't used).

If you need compatibility, use -PN. That's not going away.

The reason for deprecating %patchN is that it's a mind-bogglingly bad syntax for what it does, and prevents making %prep like any other section in the spec (don't ask, you don't want to know). Positional arguments is the natural way to pass data to a command that requires one or more pieces of data to do anything, but at least -PN is not *harmful*.

Note that this all only goes for the "%patchN" pseudo-macro, "PatchN" *declarations* are not deprecated and wont be going anywhere. There seemed to be some confusion about this earlier in this thread.

	- Panu -
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux