[Fedora-packaging] NewPackageProcess, comment on Patch0 vs Patch

[Cristian Gafton]

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 at 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