Bug 2161293
| Summary: | `%patch 1` applies patches 0 and 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | Reporter: | Vít Ondruch <vondruch> |
| Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Packaging Maintenance Team <packaging-team-maint> |
| Status: | CLOSED MIGRATED | QA Contact: | swm-qe |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | Mariya Pershina <mpershin> |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 9.3 | CC: | ffesti, jaruga, mbanas, mcurlej, mpershin, pmatilai |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | MigratedToJIRA, Triaged |
| Target Release: | 9.3 | Flags: | pm-rhel:
mirror+
|
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2023-09-21 17:08:16 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Vít Ondruch
2023-01-16 14:20:18 UTC
Just FTR, I have reported this against RHEL8, but if that does not work, it would be better to address this at least in RHEL9. It's too late for this kind of change in RHEL 8, but we'll consider for RHEL 9. The main issue is compatibility, or lack of thereof, with some old quirky behaviors. Fedora/RHEL package set should not be affected but who knows what's out there... Actually the story here is that rpm always supported patch numbers as positional arguments to %patch. The gotcha here is that %patch is *also* interpreted to mean either "patch number zero" or "numberless Patch:", depending on the rpm version, so '%patch 1' would try to apply patches 0 and 1. Which makes no sense whatsover, and could be considered as a bug. There problem is there may be people relying on '%patch' to apply patch 0/numberless patch. This needs quite some care to avoid breaking and/or making the compat situation actually worse. > Bug 2161293 - `%patch 1` applies patches 0 and 1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161293#c4 > The gotcha here is that %patch is *also* interpreted to mean either "patch number zero" or "numberless Patch:", depending on the rpm version, so '%patch 1' would try to apply patches 0 and 1. Which makes no sense whatsover, and could be considered as a bug. There problem is there may be people relying on '%patch' to apply patch 0/numberless patch. The `%patch 1` try to apply "both" patch 0 and 1? Hmm, confusing. Issue migration from Bugzilla to Jira is in process at this time. This will be the last message in Jira copied from the Bugzilla bug. This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there. Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated. Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information. To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "RHEL-" followed by an integer. You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like: "Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567 In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information. |