English Japanese
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:
The above is perfectly acceptable; but if you prefer, a brief comment about what the patch does above can be helpful:
If upstream doesn't have a bug tracker
You can indicate that you have sent the patch upstream and any known status:
Fedora-specific (or rejected upstream) patches
It may be that some patches truly are Fedora-specific; in that case, say so:
Why upstream?
Patch status
Sending patches upstream and adding this comment will help ensure that Fedora is acting as a good FLOSS citizen (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/[Staying Close to Upstream Projects]). 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.
Refer https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/[Staying Close to Upstream Projects]
# https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12345
Patch: gnome-panel-fix-frobnicator.patch
# Don't crash with frobnicator applet
# https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12345
Patch: gnome-panel-fix-frobnicator.patch
# Sent upstream via email 20080407
Patch: foobar-fix-the-bar.patch
# Upstream has applied this in SVN trunk
Patch: foobar-fix-the-baz.patch
# This patch is temporary until we land the long term System.loadLibrary fix in OpenJDK
Patch: jna-jni-path.patch