Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?

I got a push by a proven packager to one of the packages which I maintain, commit subject and changelog entry "Fix deprecated patch rpm macro". It contains no explanation and no reference whatsoever. I didn't find any heads up notice, nor info in the packaging guidelines, but I didn't try too hard - because it's not my job. I mean: One person is doing that push. Is it too much to ask to get at least the slightest bit of reference or communication before or into a push which probably affects hundreds of people? If not out of courtesy then out of mere common sense of efficiency? On the technical side, I'd be interested why this is better (fewer macros?) and which releases can take it, and what are the recommendations for `PatchN:`-lines (with or without N), and why (or whether) the recommendation isn't to go for `%autosetup` or `%autopatch` - maybe all answered in the missing reference.

Florian Festi wrote: > On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote: >> Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`? > > Yes, see %patch section on > https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html Quoting that: %patch is used to apply patches on top of the just unpacked pristine sources. Historically it supported multiple strange syntaxes and buggy behaviors, which are no longer maintained. To apply patch number 1, the following are recognized: %patch 1 (since rpm >= 4.18) %patch -P1 (all rpm versions) %patch1 (deprecated, do not use) For new packages, the positional argument form 1) is preferred. For maximal compatibility use 2). Both forms can be used to apply several patches at once, in the order they appear on the line. The third form where the number is a part of the directive is deprecated and should not be used anymore. Which gets to Michael's question "which releases can take it?" Changing `%patch1` to `%patch 1` limits support to Fedora 37 and above, unless this has been backported to older Fedora and/or RHEL rpm? Until it's supported by all current Fedora and RHEL releases, it's not a change I'd want in the packages I maintain. I'd have to go with `%patch -P1` (anywhere that %autosetup / %autopatch wasn't used).

Florian Festi wrote: > On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote: >> Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`? > Yes, see %patch section on > https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html Quoting that: %patch is used to apply patches on top of the just unpacked pristine sources. Historically it supported multiple strange syntaxes and buggy behaviors, which are no longer maintained. To apply patch number 1, the following are recognized: %patch 1 (since rpm >= 4.18) %patch -P1 (all rpm versions) %patch1 (deprecated, do not use) For new packages, the positional argument form 1) is preferred. For maximal compatibility use 2). Both forms can be used to apply several patches at once, in the order they appear on the line. The third form where the number is a part of the directive is deprecated and should not be used anymore. Which gets to Michael's question "which releases can take it?" Changing `%patch1` to `%patch 1` limits support to Fedora 37 and above, unless this has been backported to older Fedora and/or RHEL rpm? Until it's supported by all current Fedora and RHEL releases, it's not a change I'd want in the packages I maintain. I'd have to go with `%patch -P1` (anywhere that %autosetup / %autopatch wasn't used). _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`? Yes, see %patch section on https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html > I got a push by a proven packager to one of the packages which I > maintain, commit subject and changelog entry "Fix deprecated patch > rpm macro". It contains no explanation and no reference whatsoever. I > didn't find any heads up notice, nor info in the packaging > guidelines, but I didn't try too hard - because it's not my job. > > I mean: One person is doing that push. Is it too much to ask to get > at least the slightest bit of reference or communication before or > into a push which probably affects hundreds of people? If not out of > courtesy then out of mere common sense of efficiency? > > On the technical side, I'd be interested why this is better (fewer > macros?) and which releases can take it, and what are the > recommendations for `PatchN:`-lines (with or without N), and why (or > whether) the recommendation isn't to go for `%autosetup` or > `%autopatch` - maybe all answered in the missing reference. Those macros are an ugly hack and RPM upstream rather had them go away. The deprecation suggests a one to one replacement. Ofc using the use of %autosetup or %autopatch is encouraged but that kinda out of scope of the deprecation. Florian _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?

I got a push by a proven packager to one of the packages which I maintain, commit subject and changelog entry "Fix deprecated patch rpm macro". It contains no explanation and no reference whatsoever. I didn't find any heads up notice, nor info in the packaging guidelines, but I didn't try too hard - because it's not my job. I mean: One person is doing that push. Is it too much to ask to get at least the slightest bit of reference or communication before or into a push which probably affects hundreds of people? If not out of courtesy then out of mere common sense of efficiency?