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!

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