2009/11/8 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com:
2009/11/7 Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu:
> "JU" == Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com writes:
JU> A new draft of the guidelines is here: JU> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EmacsPackagingRevised
These do look significantly simpler, which is generally a good thing. Is there a good way to see the actual diffs between this and the existing guidelines? Or could you summarize them in a bit more detail?
OK, I did diff the original and revised guidelines, but it's not that easily digested, so I'll attempt a summary.
Some of the primary concerns with (x)emacs add on packages are:
- Correct package and sub-package naming and organization
- Installing the files in the right places
- Ensuring that the version of (x)emacs that was used to byte compile
the elisp files is a requirement of the package - requiring build time detection of the (x)emacs version
With the current guidelines, points 2 and 3 were handled by calling pkg-config to define macros at add-on package build time. This makes use of a pkg-config file installed with the (x)emacs package.
With the revised guidelines we make use of macros in the files /etc/rpm/macros.[x]emacs to ensure the relevant macros are defined for add-on package building. This removes the pkg-config complexity and removes a lot of boilerplate from the spec files.
That's the main point of the guideline update.
At the same time I've reorganised the guidelines for clarity and simplicity. I hope they're a lot easier to follow now.
Two extra points:
I should have emphasized that the changes to the guidelines are purely about mechanism, and not policy. Nothing has changed with regard to emacs add-on packaging policy in the guidelines.
I should also addd, as a sidenote, that the old pkg-config way of doing things still works, as we haven't removed the pkg-config files from the emacs/xemacs packages. So nothing breaks.
J.