From 2931047efc31f1288788bcdc8bd1d00b53cb9c76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:02:23 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Issue warning on implicit "%patch zero" variants,
sanitize semantics
Supporting `%patch` with no number specified, in particular combinations
like `%patch 1` meaning patches 0 and 1 (!), prevents further progress
in this area. Dropping support for these is a case of sawing off a limb
to save the patient, but there's enough history to numberless `%patch`
that we need to take the long route of deprecating it first.
To be exact:
- we now issue a warning on `%patch` where no patch numbers have been
specified, but assume it to mean Patch0 for now
- `%patch N' applies patch N and nothing else
While at it, avoid an unnecessary strdup() and a dangling buf after
free.
(cherry picked from commit 02b8d8dccc0f045b0ebf81785cf6ad1056cf550e)
---
build/parsePrep.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/build/parsePrep.c b/build/parsePrep.c
index d92e5cdf0..533de8a2c 100644
--- a/build/parsePrep.c
+++ b/build/parsePrep.c
@@ -380,9 +380,7 @@ exit:
* - %patchN is equal to %patch -P\<N\>
* - -P\<N\> -P\<N+1\>... can be used to apply several patch on a single line
* - Any trailing arguments are treated as patch numbers
- * - Any combination of the above, except unless at least one -P is specified,
- * %patch is treated as "numberless patch" so that "%patch 1" actually tries
- * to pull in numberless "Patch:" and numbered "Patch1:".
+ * - Any combination of the above
*
* @param spec build info
* @param line current line from spec file
@@ -420,15 +418,8 @@ static rpmRC doPatchMacro(rpmSpec spec, const char *line)
/* Convert %patchN to %patch -PN to simplify further processing */
if (! strchr(" \t\n", line[6])) {
rasprintf(&buf, "%%patch -P %s", line + 6);
- } else {
- /* %patch without a number refers to patch 0 */
- if (strstr(line+6, " -P") == NULL)
- rasprintf(&buf, "%%patch -P %d %s", 0, line + 6);
- else
- buf = xstrdup(line);
}
- poptParseArgvString(buf, &argc, &argv);
- free(buf);
+ poptParseArgvString(buf ? buf : line, &argc, &argv);
/*
* Grab all -P<N> numbers for later processing. Stored as strings
@@ -459,6 +450,11 @@ static rpmRC doPatchMacro(rpmSpec spec, const char *line)
/* Any trailing arguments are treated as patch numbers */
argvAppend(&patchnums, (ARGV_const_t) poptGetArgs(optCon));
+ if (argvCount(patchnums) == 0) {
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("Patch number not specified: %s\n"), line);
+ argvAdd(&patchnums, "0");
+ }
+
/* Convert to number, generate patch command and append to %prep script */
for (patch = patchnums; *patch; patch++) {
uint32_t pnum;
@@ -484,6 +480,7 @@ exit:
free(opt_d);
free(opt_o);
free(argv);
+ free(buf);
poptFreeContext(optCon);
return rc;
}
--
2.47.0
From a8e821ff5c126613e13277bfd8b2050b71d1ea4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Domonkos <mdomonko@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 11:57:47 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Safeguard against silent Patch0 omission
Commit 02b8d8dccc0f045b0ebf81785cf6ad1056cf550e fixed %patch so that it
no longer applies Patch0 implicitly when used without the -P option. A
side effect of this is that, if a spec happens to rely on this quirky
behavior, it will now skip Patch0 silently.
To prevent such silent regressions in existing packages, make explicit
Patch0 application mandatory unless all %patch lines in the spec use the
non-ambiguous syntax (i.e. %patchN, %patch -PN or %patch 0).
Basically, this reverts the above commit but replaces the original code
with an error message.
Resolves: RHEL-6294
---
build/parsePrep.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
build/rpmbuild_internal.h | 3 +++
build/spec.c | 3 +++
3 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
diff --git a/build/parsePrep.c b/build/parsePrep.c
index 533de8a2c..9d64c2141 100644
--- a/build/parsePrep.c
+++ b/build/parsePrep.c
@@ -418,6 +418,10 @@ static rpmRC doPatchMacro(rpmSpec spec, const char *line)
/* Convert %patchN to %patch -PN to simplify further processing */
if (! strchr(" \t\n", line[6])) {
rasprintf(&buf, "%%patch -P %s", line + 6);
+ } else {
+ /* %patch without a number used to refer to patch 0 */
+ if (strstr(line+6, " -P") == NULL)
+ spec->patch0_implicit = line;
}
poptParseArgvString(buf ? buf : line, &argc, &argv);
@@ -464,6 +468,8 @@ static rpmRC doPatchMacro(rpmSpec spec, const char *line)
*patch, line);
goto exit;
}
+ if (pnum == 0)
+ spec->patch0_explicit = line;
s = doPatch(spec, pnum, opt_p, opt_b, opt_R, opt_E, opt_F, opt_d, opt_o, opt_Z);
if (s == NULL) {
goto exit;
@@ -516,8 +522,18 @@ int parsePrep(rpmSpec spec)
}
}
+ if (spec->patch0_implicit && !spec->patch0_explicit &&
+ findSource(spec, 0, RPMBUILD_ISPATCH)) {
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_ERR, _("Patch0 no longer applied implicitly, pass 0 or -P0: %s\n"),
+ spec->patch0_implicit);
+ res = PART_ERROR;
+ goto exit;
+ }
+
exit:
argvFree(saveLines);
+ spec->patch0_implicit = NULL;
+ spec->patch0_explicit = NULL;
return res;
}
diff --git a/build/rpmbuild_internal.h b/build/rpmbuild_internal.h
index 797d27744..545cc1f43 100644
--- a/build/rpmbuild_internal.h
+++ b/build/rpmbuild_internal.h
@@ -132,6 +132,9 @@ struct rpmSpec_s {
int autonum_patch;
int autonum_source;
+ const char *patch0_implicit;
+ const char *patch0_explicit;
+
char * sourceRpmName;
unsigned char * sourcePkgId;
Package sourcePackage;
diff --git a/build/spec.c b/build/spec.c
index 6d402319f..72f0d25bd 100644
--- a/build/spec.c
+++ b/build/spec.c
@@ -232,6 +232,9 @@ rpmSpec newSpec(void)
spec->autonum_patch = -1;
spec->autonum_source = -1;
+ spec->patch0_implicit = NULL;
+ spec->patch0_explicit = NULL;
+
spec->sourceRpmName = NULL;
spec->sourcePkgId = NULL;
spec->sourcePackage = NULL;
--
2.47.0
From 896c7e37d65b1019cc179abcf9524807ba2006d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Domonkos <mdomonko@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:10:53 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Improve newly added %patch warning/error messages
Make it obvious that the numberless %patch syntax is now *deprecated*
(and thus no longer works in RHEL-10).
Also suggest an actual fix to the user (in both messages), much like we
have for the %patchN warning in RPM 4.19 (see commit
eb5ece1267a22330f6116149997cf5cc1c22b21f).
Kudos to Eva Mrakova for noticing & suggesting this.
Related: RHEL-6294
---
build/parsePrep.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/build/parsePrep.c b/build/parsePrep.c
index 9d64c2141..63014ea89 100644
--- a/build/parsePrep.c
+++ b/build/parsePrep.c
@@ -455,7 +455,8 @@ static rpmRC doPatchMacro(rpmSpec spec, const char *line)
argvAppend(&patchnums, (ARGV_const_t) poptGetArgs(optCon));
if (argvCount(patchnums) == 0) {
- rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("Patch number not specified: %s\n"), line);
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("%%patch (without a number) is deprecated, "
+ "add 0 (or -P 0): %s\n"), line);
argvAdd(&patchnums, "0");
}
@@ -524,8 +525,8 @@ int parsePrep(rpmSpec spec)
if (spec->patch0_implicit && !spec->patch0_explicit &&
findSource(spec, 0, RPMBUILD_ISPATCH)) {
- rpmlog(RPMLOG_ERR, _("Patch0 no longer applied implicitly, pass 0 or -P0: %s\n"),
- spec->patch0_implicit);
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_ERR, _("%%patch N no longer applies Patch0 implicitly, "
+ "add 0 (or -P 0): %s\n"), spec->patch0_implicit);
res = PART_ERROR;
goto exit;
}
--
2.47.0