Closed #110.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/110#event-927535419___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Implemented as of commit 1d7b45e484883f3a340f40610b060cc100f62caa and
34c4609df37c2462dcd884e7952259b66ebd3098 as a separate "gendiff" backend. See
commit messages & PR#109 comments for further rationale.
Credits in the commit message already but again, thanks for input and
inspiration on
I am not user of %auto{patch,setup} but I hate the backup files around. I
really don't see any reason for their existence. And I saw quite some packages
shipping them accidentally ...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it
pmatilai requested changes on this pull request.
I'm actually in favor of enabling backups by default. However this patch
clearly hasn't been tested, nor reviewed, at all. It refers to a non-existent
patches_num variable so any attempt to use %autosetup with this patch ends up
in:
`error:
I dont see any *real* reasons against backups by default here. The default
should be the most useful one, and the way I see it for those living with
gendiff for one reason or another backups are a must. In my experience the only
reason NOT to create backups is stupid (often perl) projects which
@pmatilai I'm tempted to not modify the default backend because of reasons
mentioned by @soig and @ignatenkobrain in #109. But let me see what I can do
about introducing an alternative backend that creates patch backups.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Yup. Or actually the other way around: have the default "patch" version create
backups because that's more in line with the other backends, and add another
backend like patch_nobackup (gosh I hate that name) for the no-backup case.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
@pmatilai so you'd want instead a `-S patchbackup` backend instead of using
`-B` at `%autosetup`/`%autopatch`?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
So actually I think this is best handled by having two separate backends
(similar to git and git_am) where one creates backups and the other one
doesn't. That way there's no need to introduce new option that is specific to
one backend only.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
My issue with this is that it adds an option that is by definition only
relevant to a single "backend" of %autosetup, and the most uninteresting one at
that. I'm all for supporting backups for plain patch, doing them was actually
always part of the plan only never implemented.
--
You are
%autosetup + SCM is quite a lot better IMHO...
Also, Mageia as the primary (only?) rpm.org user and %apply_patch
user is switching away from %apply_patch towards %auto(setup|patch)
and all packagers are happy with no backup at all or using SCM so I
don't know why "The legacy Mandriva
ignatenkobrain approved this pull request.
LGTM
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
12 matches
Mail list logo
