<div dir="ltr">Hi<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz <span dir="ltr"></span>wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">On 2014-06-27 10:17, Till Maas wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Yes, I missed this as well. Also IIRC the guidelines demand an patch<br>
status comment for each patch in the spec file, so just adding patch<br>
without noting why it is not upstreamable or information about when/how<br>
it was upstreamed is bad and should IMHO not be done by provenpackagers.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
When patching others&#39; code, I generally follow the existing style; I can tell you that *many* packages don&#39;t have these patch comments. ¬†Thanks for bringing this to my attention.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
The guidelines don&#39;t demand it but it is recommended<br><br><a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment</a><br>
<br><a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Work_with_upstream">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Work_with_upstream</a> <br><br><a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects</a><br>
<br></div><div>Rahul<br></div></div></div></div></div>