On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 9:16 PM Maxwell G gotmax@e.email wrote:
Hi,
I am a little unsure about the kf5 macros, specifically the ones that have exactly the same value as their non-kf5 counterparts (e.g. `%_kf5_bindir`). Are all KDE packages required to use them? I assume that packages should at least be consistent. I am asking, because I have been reviewing some KDE packages that don't use the kf5 macros consistently or even use `%{_macro}` and `%{_kf5_macro}` at different places in the same specfile. I figured that I'd ask here before correcting anybody else.
The main reason for the macros is that it ensures we can have consistent, correct behavior on both Fedora and EPEL (RHEL/CentOS). Backporting our own macros is a lot easier when they're in our own namespace. We generally prefer KDE applications to use the qt5/kf5 macros in place of the standard ones for this reason.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Friday, November 26, 2021 9:20:28 PM EST Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 9:16 PM Maxwell G gotmax@e.email wrote:
Hi,
I am a little unsure about the kf5 macros, specifically the ones that have exactly the same value as their non-kf5 counterparts (e.g. `%_kf5_bindir`). Are all KDE packages required to use them? I assume that packages should at least be consistent. I am asking, because I have been reviewing some KDE packages that don't use the kf5 macros consistently or even use `%{_macro}` and `%{_kf5_macro}` at different places in the same specfile. I figured that I'd ask here before correcting anybody else.
The main reason for the macros is that it ensures we can have consistent, correct behavior on both Fedora and EPEL (RHEL/CentOS). Backporting our own macros is a lot easier when they're in our own namespace. We generally prefer KDE applications to use the qt5/kf5 macros in place of the standard ones for this reason.
Hi Neil,
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Can we consider including that in the Packaging Guidelines or somewhere semi-official?
Thanks, Maxwell
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 9:33 PM Maxwell G gotmax@e.email wrote:
On Friday, November 26, 2021 9:20:28 PM EST Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 9:16 PM Maxwell G gotmax@e.email wrote:
Hi,
I am a little unsure about the kf5 macros, specifically the ones that have exactly the same value as their non-kf5 counterparts (e.g. `%_kf5_bindir`). Are all KDE packages required to use them? I assume that packages should at least be consistent. I am asking, because I have been reviewing some KDE packages that don't use the kf5 macros consistently or even use `%{_macro}` and `%{_kf5_macro}` at different places in the same specfile. I figured that I'd ask here before correcting anybody else.
The main reason for the macros is that it ensures we can have consistent, correct behavior on both Fedora and EPEL (RHEL/CentOS). Backporting our own macros is a lot easier when they're in our own namespace. We generally prefer KDE applications to use the qt5/kf5 macros in place of the standard ones for this reason.
Hi Neil,
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Can we consider including that in the Packaging Guidelines or somewhere semi-official?
Yeah, I suppose so. It'd probably be useful to have this documented somewhere if more people are going to be packaging KDE applications. :)
-
Maxwell G -
Neal Gompa