Summary test mandates that sources (SourceX) and patches (PatchX) should be prefixed with the package name. The link in the test does not support this requirement, nor does other parts of the GL.
The check on SourceX is plain wrong. Sources are named by upstream, we can and should not change this.
The check on patches might be considered best practise, although not mandated by GL. See e. g., [http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html-single/RPM_Guide/index.html#id766199]
Proposed handling: remove checke on SourceX, move check on PatchX to EXTRA section.
I think it is quite common that patches are either named as per "git patch" convention (perhaps with initial number stripped), or as a bug tracker reference (bz123456.patch).
Indeed. However, the issue here is whether we should recommend prefixing this with package name or not.
Truth be told, I personally use git format-patch convention as well since that's how I generate the patches. At the least I'd move it to EXTRAS and add a note descibing that is indeed up to the maintainer. I.e. just a reminder for those that use really non-descriptive patch names
Even completely removing the check is not a problem IMO, since patch naming seems like a extremely personal thing :-)
Since there is no common view of what's 'best practise', and there's nothing in the GL about this: lets just remove the check.
Fixed in 47ef9f9.
Login to comment on this ticket.