On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Patches should start at Patch0, don't use Patch, even if you only have one right now, because inevitably, you'll need another one at some point before the sun explodes.
What is the rationale?
Patch: foo.patch Patch1: bar.patch # ... %patch -p1 -b .foo %patch1 -p1 -b .bar
work just fine. 'Patch' == 'Patch0' is true.
I am not sure what the rationale is. I always used just "Patch" and "%patch" when I only have one patch and later on I rename those to "Patch0" and "%patch0" when new patches are added.
Having "Patch" and "Patch1" mixed up is unsightly, I agree. I would not mandate the usage of "Patch0" instead of "Patch" for packages with a single patch, but I would mandate that all patch lines be numbered for those with multiple patches.
Cristian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Gafton -- gafton@xxxxxxxxxx -- Red Hat, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Linux is a leprosy; and is having a deleterious effect on the U.S. IT
industry because it is steadily depreciating the value of the software
industry sector."
-- Kenneth Brown, President, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution