RPM building section of RHL's developer guide

Warren Togami warren at togami.com
Thu Jul 24 04:35:00 UTC 2003


On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 00:26, Matthias Saou wrote:
> - Summary: I'd like to see an official suggestion as to whether a
> trailing
>   dot should be added or omitted. If would be prettier when all go by
> at
>   install time :-)

What do you mean?

> - %description and %prep shouldn't be stuck together for readability
> and
>   section separation.

+1
http://cvs.fedora.us/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/packages/fedora-rpmdevtools/spectemplate.spec
Consider something like the layout near the top of Fedora's spec
template.

> Now about the guidelines... ;-)
> 
> 5) "The package may obsolete itself"... I really don't get that one!

When we hear the answer to this, can we have links from the RHLP page to
more detailed information describing "why" and examples where it is
used?

Can we Wiki this? =)

> 13) "If a newer RPM does not have a binary package that the older
> SRPMS
>     produced, the binary package not produced anymore must be
> specified
>     with the Obsoletes: option in the new spec file."
>     I would also add something about encouraging to always use
> versions
>     with "Obsoletes:" in order to avoid many kind of future issues
> when
>     re-introducing packages for example.
> 
> Also, there is no mention of "Epoch:" usage, not even a quick note to
> suggest not introducing any apart from when it's really the last
> resort. I
> guess people may want to stay out of the endless discussion for as
> long as
> possible ;-)
> IIRC, I think I read someone mentioning somewhere that a list of
> current
> packages with full "n-e-v-r" would be maintained. With the current
> implementation of epoch handling in rpm >= 4.2.1, this will become a
> necessity when depending on specific versions of certain packages.

Responding to this in a new thread.  Preparing flame retardant suit.

Warren Togami
warren at togami.com





More information about the devel mailing list