Dne 14. 05. 24 v 2:03 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:09 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally
Dne 14. 05. 24 v 11:26 Tim Landscheidt napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote:
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally
implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros
and though can be used in other macros and expressions.
Do I read correctly that we can now use `%patch` in
e.g.
On 5/13/24 17:08, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro
that is expanded with other macros and though can
Vít Ondruch wrote:
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally
implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros
and though can be used in other macros and expressions.
>>> Do I read correctly that we can now use `%patch` in
>>> e.g. `%check` section? Interesting. Is
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> the %check section
> (which, if I remember correctly is run AFTER the creation of the
> binary RPMs)
No, it runs after %install but before the files are packaged up. It's
possible for %check to make changes to what was staged in %install and
have those changes appear in
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:09 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> > On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>
> >> Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
> >>> %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro
> >>> that is
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro
that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other
macros and
On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro
that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other
macros and expressions.
Do I read correctly that we can now use
Dne 10. 05. 24 v 15:20 Florian Festi napsal(a):
On 5/10/24 14:10, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I'd actually prefer the `%patch 1` syntax (which is also the first on
the list [1]). Yes, I understand that `%patch -P1` is to stay on the
safe side, but this is Fedora change, not RHEL or EPEL change.
But if
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro
that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other
macros and expressions.
Do I read correctly that we can now use `%patch` in e.g. `%check`
section?
On 5/11/24 01:04, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Florian Festi wrote:
>> We have an even easier solution for you: You can just run the script at
>> [3] with -n on your own spec files to get them changed to the %patch N
>> variant. If you do that right now they will not break nor will they be
>>
Adam Williamson wrote:
> The shortest syntax is just to use Patch: foo.patch , and %autosetup .
That is not a syntax to apply a patch, it is an automagic that blindly
applies all patches in numeric order. Cannot reorder patches, cannot apply
them conditionally (e.g., based on the 0%{?fedora}
On Sat, 2024-05-11 at 01:04 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Florian Festi wrote:
> > We have an even easier solution for you: You can just run the script at
> > [3] with -n on your own spec files to get them changed to the %patch N
> > variant. If you do that right now they will not break
Florian Festi wrote:
> We have an even easier solution for you: You can just run the script at
> [3] with -n on your own spec files to get them changed to the %patch N
> variant. If you do that right now they will not break nor will they be
> touched during the mass change.
>
> As I said the
On 5/10/24 14:10, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I'd actually prefer the `%patch 1` syntax (which is also the first on
> the list [1]). Yes, I understand that `%patch -P1` is to stay on the
> safe side, but this is Fedora change, not RHEL or EPEL change.
>
> But if you insist on `-P1`, then please skip all
I'd actually prefer the `%patch 1` syntax (which is also the first on
the list [1]). Yes, I understand that `%patch -P1` is to stay on the
safe side, but this is Fedora change, not RHEL or EPEL change.
But if you insist on `-P1`, then please skip all packages I am
associated with. I'd prefer
Am 08.05.24 um 00:22 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel:
Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:17 AM Leon Fauster via devel
wrote:
Am 06.05.24 um 13:56 schrieb Florian Festi:
Hi everyone,
RPM has deprecated the %patchN syntax in favor of %patch -PN where N is
the patch number for a year
On 5/8/24 00:49, Omair Majid wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Florian Festi writes:
>
>> If anyone has any objections or would like to exclude a package, please
>> let me know.
>
> Could you please exclude the .NET packages (dotnet6.0, dotnet7.0,
> dotnet8.0)? dotnet8.0 shouldn't need a fix (and it doesn't
Hi,
Florian Festi writes:
> If anyone has any objections or would like to exclude a package, please
> let me know.
Could you please exclude the .NET packages (dotnet6.0, dotnet7.0,
dotnet8.0)? dotnet8.0 shouldn't need a fix (and it doesn't appear in your
list). dotnet7.0 is already
Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:17 AM Leon Fauster via devel
> wrote:
>>
>> Am 06.05.24 um 13:56 schrieb Florian Festi:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > RPM has deprecated the %patchN syntax in favor of %patch -PN where N is
>> > the patch number for a year now. See the RPM documentation
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:17 AM Leon Fauster via devel
wrote:
>
> Am 06.05.24 um 13:56 schrieb Florian Festi:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > RPM has deprecated the %patchN syntax in favor of %patch -PN where N is
> > the patch number for a year now. See the RPM documentation for more
> > information
Am 06.05.24 um 13:56 schrieb Florian Festi:
Hi everyone,
RPM has deprecated the %patchN syntax in favor of %patch -PN where N is
the patch number for a year now. See the RPM documentation for more
information [1]. In current RPM versions, this syntax only emits a
deprecation warning, but
Dne 06. 05. 24 v 1:56 odp. Florian Festi napsal(a):
RPM has deprecated the %patchN syntax in favor of %patch -PN where N is
the patch number for a year now. See the RPM documentation for more
information [1]. In current RPM versions, this syntax only emits a
deprecation warning, but support for
Hi everyone,
RPM has deprecated the %patchN syntax in favor of %patch -PN where N is
the patch number for a year now. See the RPM documentation for more
information [1]. In current RPM versions, this syntax only emits a
deprecation warning, but support for this syntax has been removed
completely
24 matches
Mail list logo
