NewPackageProcess, comment on Patch0 vs Patch

[Michael Schwendt]

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NewPackageProcess

says:

>  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.

[Tom Callaway]

On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 21:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> 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. 
It's stylistic. 

I think %patch0 is cleaner than %patch, and won't confuse new packagers
who can assume that they can just do:

Patch: foo
Patch: bar

%patch -p1

And to be honest, the NewPackageProcess apparently got created while I
was asleep, from my "ExtrasPackageChecklist", which I wrote not as a
standard, but as a cheat sheet for me. Don't assume it's a standards
document worth following (yet).

~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:08:51 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:

>  >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.
>  
>  It's stylistic.  
Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

[Cristian Gafton]

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(a)redhat.com      --     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