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