Packaging Committee Meeting Summary (2010-02-03)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:48:52PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 23:46 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> > 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.
> 
> Anyway here is one occurence of what I worried about in all its glory
> 
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=130814
> 
Yep.

So, while less than ideal from your standpoint of putting the definition of
the subpackage together with the call to the macro, does rearranging things
like this  do the trick?


[Package  info]
[subpackage info]

%prep
[prep stuff]

%build
[build stuff]

%install
[install stuff]


%_font_pkg -n 2 -f %{fontconf}-2.conf AccanthisADFStdNo2-*.otf

Since %_font_pkg is creating %files sections and %pre and %post sections,
that seems like both a valid workaround and where you'd look for those
declarations in a non-font package.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100203/5c347f66/attachment.bin