m (Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus moved to Packaging:PatchUpstreamStatus: Moving Packaging Pages to Packaging Namespace) |
(Add Category) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Refer [[PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream| Why Upstream?]] | Refer [[PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream| Why Upstream?]] | ||
[[Category:Packaging guidelines]] | |||
Revision as of 19:19, 17 February 2010
All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment
All patches in Fedora spec files SHOULD have a comment above them about their upstream status. Any time you create a patch, it is best practice to file it in an upstream bug tracker, and include a link to that in the comment above the patch. For example:
# http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12345 Patch0: gnome-panel-fix-frobnicator.patch
The above is perfectly acceptable; but if you prefer, a brief comment about what the patch does above can be helpful:
# Don't crash with frobnicator applet # http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12345 Patch0: gnome-panel-fix-frobnicator.patch
Sending patches upstream and adding this comment will help ensure that Fedora is acting as a good FLOSS citizen (see Why Upstream? ). It will help others (and even you) down the line in package maintenance by knowing what patches are likely to appear in a new upstream release.
If upstream doesn't have a bug tracker
You can indicate that you have sent the patch upstream and any known status:
# Sent upstream via email 20080407 Patch0: foobar-fix-the-bar.patch
# Upstream has applied this in SVN trunk Patch0: foobar-fix-the-baz.patch
Fedora-specific (or rejected upstream) patches
It may be that some patches truly are Fedora-specific; in that case, say so:
# This patch is temporary until we land the long term System.loadLibrary fix in OpenJDK Patch0: jna-jni-path.patch
Why upstream?
Refer Why Upstream?