Spec file naming

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

I filed https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/553 to tighten up the naming
of spec files.  Currently the guidelines are a little loose with regards
to this.  I thought we tightened them up a long time ago, but I guess
not.

Here is the contents of the ticket to save you a click:

I thought that at some point we tightened up the spec naming to
absolutely require that the specfile for package asdfg be called
asdfg.spec.  However, the current guidelines say:

  The spec file should be named using the %{name}.spec scheme. This is
  to make it easier for people to find the appropriate spec when they
  install a src.rpm.

  There is normally no need to include the %{version} in the spec file
  name. If you are packaging multiple versions of a package for
  simultaneous use, they should already reflect the version in the
  %{name}.spec scheme (refer to Multiple Packages with the same base
  %name for details). In normal cases adding the version can cause the
  %spec file's history to be lost when a package's version is upgraded.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name

On IRC today it was mentioned that fedpkg will look for any spec and
pick the first one it finds (in os.istdir() order, so it's pretty much
random).  I'm thinking we should just tighten up the language here to
say that you must call the spec %{name}.spec, and in addition move that
section to the main guidelines.

Or am I missing something?  If there's a valid reason for having a
differently-named spec file, I can think of what it would be.  This
would allow fedpkg to tighten up its method for finding the spec file,
which would in turn allow people to check in other files named *.spec
(for local edits or different compilation options, for example) without
fear of fedpkg picking the wrong one.

Proposed language:

  The spec file '''must''' be named
<code>%{name}.spec</code>.  That is,
  if your package is named <code>asdfg</code>, the spec file must be
  named <code>asdfg.spec</code>.

Placed in a section "Spec Naming" just before "Spec Legibility" in
the
main guidelines page.

 - J<

[Remi Collet]

Le 28/07/2015 18:50, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
>  Or am I missing something?  If there's a valid reason for having
> a
>  differently-named spec file,  
The only case I'm aware if is SCL where the same spec can be use to
generate various package (1 per SCL)

With

Name:  %{?scl-pefix}foo

So foo.spec can create
	foo-1.0.0-1.src.rpm
	scl1-foo-1.0.0-1.src.rpm
	scl2-foo-1.0.0-1.src.rpm
	...


Remi


P.S. and yes I still hope sometime SCL will be allowed in Fedora.
Shame on us for this.
/me still dreaming.

[Vít Ondruch]

Review guidelines [1] already states:

"*MUST*: The spec file name must match the base package |%{name}|, in
the format |%{name}.spec| unless your package has an exemption."


Vít



[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines





Dne 28.7.2015 v 18:50 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>  I filed https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/553 to tighten up the
> naming
>  of spec files.  Currently the guidelines are a little loose with regards
>  to this.  I thought we tightened them up a long time ago, but I guess
>  not.
>
>  Here is the contents of the ticket to save you a click:
>
>  I thought that at some point we tightened up the spec naming to
>  absolutely require that the specfile for package asdfg be called
>  asdfg.spec.  However, the current guidelines say:
>
>    The spec file should be named using the %{name}.spec scheme. This is
>    to make it easier for people to find the appropriate spec when they
>    install a src.rpm.
>
>    There is normally no need to include the %{version} in the spec file
>    name. If you are packaging multiple versions of a package for
>    simultaneous use, they should already reflect the version in the
>    %{name}.spec scheme (refer to Multiple Packages with the same base
>    %name for details). In normal cases adding the version can cause the
>    %spec file's history to be lost when a package's version is upgraded.
>
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
>
>  On IRC today it was mentioned that fedpkg will look for any spec and
>  pick the first one it finds (in os.istdir() order, so it's pretty much
>  random).  I'm thinking we should just tighten up the language here to
>  say that you must call the spec %{name}.spec, and in addition move that
>  section to the main guidelines.
>
>  Or am I missing something?  If there's a valid reason for having a
>  differently-named spec file, I can think of what it would be.  This
>  would allow fedpkg to tighten up its method for finding the spec file,
>  which would in turn allow people to check in other files named *.spec
>  (for local edits or different compilation options, for example) without
>  fear of fedpkg picking the wrong one.
>
>  Proposed language:
>
>    The spec file '''must''' be named
> <code>%{name}.spec</code>.  That is,
>    if your package is named <code>asdfg</code>, the spec file must be
>    named <code>asdfg.spec</code>.
>
>  Placed in a section "Spec Naming" just before "Spec Legibility" in
> the
>  main guidelines page.
>
>   - J<
>
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

Indeed they do, but that doesn't actually match what the packaging
guidelines say.  The review guidelines can easily get out of date; I
know I haven't been checking there to see if anything needs to be
updated to match the packaging guidelines.  Of course, if anyone spots
something there that's incorrect or outdated they need only let me know.

 - J<

[Jan Pokorný]

On 28/07/15 11:50 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  On IRC today it was mentioned that fedpkg will look for any spec and
>  pick the first one it finds (in os.istdir() order, so it's pretty much
>  random). 
Was bitten by this few days back:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243546

(perhaps this bug was mentioned in the chat)

-- 
Jan