Is %autosetup another unwanted baby of Fedora?

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Monday, July 13, 2015 09:13:24 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:20:12PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > On 13/07/15 15:01, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:39:57PM +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> > >> Hi
> > >> 
> > >> When I moved to Fedora after years of doing Debian packages I
> > >> noticed that there is no such thing as patch management when it
> > >> comes to Fedora packages. Everyone is using %patch macro with files
> > >> of random patchlevel (some even use reverse patches).
> > > 
> > > While not answering your question about %autosetup, I want to say this
> > > bit isn't quite true.  Some packages use an external git repo for
> > > patch management, and create the 'Patch...' lines semi-automatically.
> > > (Similar to, but less weird than:
> > > https://wiki.debian.org/PackagingWithGit)
> > > 
> > > %autosetup only handles half of this use case.  TBH it handles the bit
> > > that was already quite easy to do -- ie. invoking 'git am'.
> > > 
> > > Copying the patches from git and inserting the Patch lines is the hard
> > > part, and it would be nice to have some standardized tooling for that,
> > > instead of everyone's homebrew 'copy-patches.sh' script.
> > 
> > maybe pull `rdopkg update-patches` into `fedpkg` ?
> 
> Yup, something like that.
> 
> Is anyone maintaining fedpkg now?

fedpkg has active maintainership and development.   does not mean that every 
corner case is know about of gets attention. 

Dennis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150713/1fd5e5bf/attachment.sig>