Packaging Committee Meeting Summary (2010-02-03)
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Wed Feb 3 22:46:21 UTC 2010
Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 17:14 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:55:25PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 13:28 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> > > On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:19 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > > A side-effect, is that spec parsers that read the file in a buildroot
> > > > which is missing the package providing the macro, will sometimes think
> > > > the macro call is part of the subpackage %summary. This is
> > > > unfortunate,
> > > > but I don't see how to avoid it without making another part of the
> > > > spec
> > > > harder for us.
> > >
> > > So long as it doesn't disrupt what is viewed as the summary from the
> > > srpm stored in Koji, I think you'll be fine.
> > Unfortunately, I dimly remember seing the macro call appear in the past
> > in the summary shown in packagedb or koji (don't remember the package
> > name, and it may not occur with new koji/packagedb versions).
> Easy to check, what's a package that does this macro directly after Summary:
> or %description?
adf-accanthis-fonts is probably the most recent "complex" font package
but I wouldn't vouch the declaration happens exactly in the same order
in all font packages. The general pattern is the same but packagers have
different tools and habits so slight variations exist.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100203/8c33d5d0/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the devel