jds SVN: spec-files

[Jedy Wang]

> > >  - changed patch2 to -p0, which is wrong: all patches are supposed
> > >    to be p1's
> > The old patch should be applied with -p1 but the new one should be
> > applied with -p0. And is there a patch policy implies that only -p1 is
> > allowed?

> 
> I thought it was written down somewhere, but you're right, I can't
> find it.  I'll update the code review page to say that all patches
> should be p1's.  This has some advantages, for example you can usually
> see which tarball was used for creating the patch.

OK, I will update the patches for evolution and evolution-data-server.
And I think you should inform the others. Here is a list of patches
applied with -p0.

./closed/SUNWrealplayer.spec:%patch -p0 
./base-specs/ospm.spec:%patch1 -p0
./base-specs/enchant.spec:%patch3 -p0
./base-specs/alacarte.spec:%patch1 -p0
./base-specs/evolution-data-server.spec:%patch1 -p0
./base-specs/evolution-data-server.spec:%patch2 -p0
./base-specs/evolution-data-server.spec:%patch3 -p0
./base-specs/pilot-link.spec:%patch1 -p0
./base-specs/evolution.spec:%patch1 -p0
./base-specs/evolution.spec:%patch2 -p0
./base-specs/evolution.spec:%patch3 -p0
./base-specs/evolution.spec:%patch4 -p0
./base-specs/evolution.spec:%patch5 -p0
./base-specs/evolution.spec:%patch7 -p0
./base-specs/gnome-spell.spec:%patch1 -p0
./base-specs/gnome-spell.spec:%patch2 -p0
./base-specs/gnome-pilot.spec:%patch6 -p0

Regards,

Jedy 
> 
> Thanks,
> Laca
> 
>