Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 11:59 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > On 24/2/25 11:07, Jian Peng wrote: > > > Dear Fedora Development Team, > > > I hope this email finds you well. > > > I have submitted a bug report on Fedora's Bugzilla regarding an issue > > > with the Aide project (ID: 2346091 > > > <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346091>), which involves > > > a patch fix and modification for the project. > > > As I have not received a response yet, I would like to follow up > > > through this mailing list. I am seeking further assistance or guidance > > > regarding the progress of the patch and the steps for handling it. > > > If replying to Bugzilla is not convenient for you, I’ll briefly > > > summarize the issue here: > > > > What is it you are asking to be done? > > > > > > It's easy enough to verify the patch gets applied and it is a revert. > > > > The package builds fine as it is. > > > > So I don't know what you are asking. > > I don't think it's that simple, in fact it's pretty weird. There is no > 'reversion' going on. The patch does not change anything. The patch is first applied by %autosetup and then immediately reverted by %patch -R. The result is that nothing is changed. If the second patching is removed, so that the patch actually takes effect, then compilation fails because "num" is unused in one place and undefined in another, as Jian Peng pointed out. > I suspect what's going on is that patch -R -b does something a bit odd > in this case - it applies the patch *to the 'backup' file* not the > original. %autosetup doesn't make a backup, but %patch is instructed to make one with the suffix ".verbose", so then conf_eval.c.verbose contains a copy of what the code briefly was between the two patchings. The same commit that added the patch file also added the reversion (and an untrue changelog entry), so there is no point in the Git history where the patch had any effect: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aide/c/a003ad04cf2504564c0497c9cce5e5aecb9d601b The whole thing is utterly useless. Was the patch produced by a language model, or what? Björn Persson
Attachment:
pgpsYl66KoE37.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
-- _______________________________________________ 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
