On Sat, 2024-05-11 at 01:04 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Florian Festi wrote: > > We have an even easier solution for you: You can just run the script at > > [3] with -n on your own spec files to get them changed to the %patch N > > variant. If you do that right now they will not break nor will they be > > touched during the mass change. > > > > As I said the %patch -PN syntax is the one with the best compatibility - > > reaching back into the dark ages. I am not advocating for people to use > > it. Anyone is free and encouraged to move to something more modern - > > before or after the change. We are using this variant so spec files > > continue to work on older distributions and the chance of breakage is > > minimized. This way packagers that don't care don't have to. > > What I do not understand is why RPM is discontinuing the most commonly used > syntax and breaking hundreds of specfiles. This also leaves us with only the > choice between a backwards-incompatible syntax (added only in RPM 4.18) and > an ugly and redundantly verbose syntax (the -P syntax). And even the modern > syntax is 1 character (space) longer for every patch. The shortest syntax > was the one being dropped. The shortest syntax is just to use Patch: foo.patch , and %autosetup . Much easier on merge requests, too. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://www.happyassassin.net -- _______________________________________________ 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
