On 5/17/24 22:42, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:50 AM Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Patch and source numbers start from zero, that goes for automatically
numbered patches too. So there's an off by one in the application, and
the latter %autopatch which is supposed to apply patches >= 2 simply
has
nothing to do, and falls through silently. That's a bug of course in
itself, filed now:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3093
<https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3093>
One thing that is quite difficult to do with %autopatch/%autosetup is
conditionally applied patches, since I've always understood it to be bad
practice to conditionalize the Patch: lines
The evolution-data-server spec file currently has:
====
# 0-99: General patches
# 100-199: Flatpak-specific patches
#
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/-/merge_requests/144 <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/-/merge_requests/144>
Patch100: Make-DBUS_SERVICES_PREFIX-runtime-configurable.patch
[...]
%prep
%autosetup -p1 -S gendiff -N
# General patches
%autopatch -p1 -m 0 -M 99
# Flatpak-specific patches
%if 0%{?flatpak}
%autopatch -p1 -m 100 -M 199
%endif
====
which will warn if you add a warning about empty %autopatch. Not sure if
there's a better way of handling that.
Yeah I know. We need a higher level way to handle conditional patches.
Just filed an RFE to look into it:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3110
- 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
