On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Bryan O'Sullivan さんは書きました:
> Frankly, I think that the current version of the guidelines is fine.
> It's much better to have something not quite perfect where we can make
> progress than to be permanently stuck. So moving forwards with what we
> have suits me.
I finally took a deep look at cabal-rpm (never actually used it before!;)
and realised that that is largely the source of all my problems with the
Below is a patch against darcs head which backports most of my changes to
the guidelines to cabal-rpm. If we're using cabal-rpm for packaging then we
really don't need to add rpm macros IMHO.
I want to move away from cabal-rpm actually.
The biggest pro for the macros is that we need the code to make sense
to other reviewers that are not experienced with this. Any time a
package needs to do something using something other than one of the
macros, then we can have an expert come in an evaluate it.
Another reason for using the macros is that changes only need to be
made to one place. While doing the guidelines, I had to make a number
of changes to cabal-rpm, and were we not to use macros, every change
to cabal-rpm would have to be backported to the packages in Fedora.
I'm going to put together some templates today.