Summary of the 2009-01-20 Packaging Committee meeting
Richard W.M. Jones
rjones at redhat.com
Tue Jan 20 20:54:11 UTC 2009
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:18:23PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> * Explicit Requires
> * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExplicitRequires
> * Note that this contains an additional section about commenting
> non-obvious items in spec files.
... which says:
"Anything in the spec file which is not obvious should have a
comment explaining it.
Some examples of non-obvious items include (but are not limited to):
* Some explicit requires
* FHS violations
* Changes to optflags
* Not using %configure or make install
* Provides/Obsoletes
* Modified tarballs
* Licensing or legal related changes"
I trust these are really just examples, not a list of things that have
to be commented on. And that reviewers who are blindly running
through the guidelines and not paying much attention won't treat this
as a bullet list of must-have comments.
All MinGW packages violate FHS [previously discussed ad nauseam] by
using /usr/i686-pc-mingw32. We also use a custom %_mingw32_configure
macro instead of %configure. %configure isn't useful for non-autoconf
packages, or for packages which have a ./configure script that isn't
autoconf-generated. In fact "make install" won't work on packages
that don't use make.
Apart from creating unnecessary make-work for packagers, I wonder what
the point of this is. A better guideline would just have this
sentence and nothing else:
"Anything in the spec file which is not obvious to a competent
packager familiar with the relevant guidelines should have a
comment explaining it."
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/
Fedora now supports 68 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora
More information about the devel
mailing list