On 06. 09. 22 19:06, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 09:04 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
Unrelated to your question, but FWIW PatchNNN is not required, all
patches can be merely "Patch: filename" and they'll get applied
in the order they are listed in the spec.
勞勞勞
See
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 09:04 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> Unrelated to your question, but FWIW PatchNNN is not required, all
> patches can be merely "Patch: filename" and they'll get applied
> in the order they are listed in the spec.
勞勞勞
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw |
On 05. 09. 22 21:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:56:58PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Monday, 05 September 2022 at 21:42, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why --
breaks riscv64 builds but is
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:56:58PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
>
> There are 26 patches so that's a bit of a PITA. Is there not an
> easier way?
>
> Rich.
Try using autopatch.
# Apply patches up to #1000 from this spec.
%autopatch -M1000 -p1
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 08:42:34PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why --
> breaks riscv64 builds but is necessary for primary Fedora arches. Is
> it correct to do:
>
> %ifnarch riscv64
> Patch123: downstream.patch
> %endif
On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 15:00 -0500, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
> On Monday, September 5, 2022 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why
> > --
> > breaks riscv64 builds but is necessary for primary Fedora arches.
> > Is
> > it correct to do:
On 5/9/22 16:42, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why --
breaks riscv64 builds but is necessary for primary Fedora arches. Is
it correct to do:
%ifnarch riscv64
Patch123: downstream.patch
%endif
When I have to do things like
On Monday, September 5, 2022 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why --
> breaks riscv64 builds but is necessary for primary Fedora arches. Is
> it correct to do:
>
> %ifnarch riscv64
> Patch123: downstream.patch
> %endif
>
> given
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:56:58PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 05 September 2022 at 21:42, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why --
> > breaks riscv64 builds but is necessary for primary Fedora arches. Is
>
On Monday, 05 September 2022 at 21:42, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why --
> breaks riscv64 builds but is necessary for primary Fedora arches. Is
> it correct to do:
>
> %ifnarch riscv64
> Patch123: downstream.patch
> %endif
>
I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why --
breaks riscv64 builds but is necessary for primary Fedora arches. Is
it correct to do:
%ifnarch riscv64
Patch123: downstream.patch
%endif
given that the package uses %autosetup and therefore doesn't have
explicit
11 matches
Mail list logo