On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Dne 8.2.2018 v 16:39 Kamil Dudka napsal(a):
> On Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:21:53 PM CET Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>> On 8 February 2018 at 15:03, Kamil Dudka <kdudka(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>> There might be valid reasons for the old stuff appearing in _some_ spec
>>> files
>>> beyond your knowledge, for example specfile maintained by upstream, usable
>>> not
>>> only by Fedora.
>> Theoretically you may be right. In practice .. nope.
>> There is no any reasons to use in Fedora spec file which is not
>> readable/simple as it is only possible because someone who is not focused
>> on Fedora want to make it universal without testing it on all possible
>> distributions on every new version released.
>>
>> kloczek
> For example logrotate upstream maintains a spec file that is regularly updated
> and CI-tested by Travis:
>
>
https://github.com/logrotate/logrotate/commits/master/logrotate.spec.in
>
> Spec files of csdiff, cscppc, csmock, and cswrap are produced by make-srpm.sh
> maintained in the upstream git repositories.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Maintenance_and_...
Not saying it contradicts the guideline above, just FYI.
In practice, there are several projects that blatantly ignore this.
Off the top of my head:
* OpenStack libraries and client packages (RDO)
* libvirt stack packages (excluding php-libvirt, as I maintain that
and have no rights to the libvirt-php repo)
* Cockpit packages
There's some hand-waviness with a few that I know of:
* Many PHP stack packages maintained by Remi (remirepo<->fedora)
* Compiler/toolchain packages (SCLized for non-Fedora)
I'm somewhat doing this with one package:
* snapd (Fedora is the canonical location, but changes are synced
between upstream and Fedora regularly for upstream CI support)
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!