[Guielines Change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

[Richard Shaw]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu>
wrote:

> >>>>> "RS" == Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 at gmail.com> writes:
>
> RS> Is this retroactive on all supported versions of Fedora?
>
> Packaging guideline changes are pretty much never retroactive; we don't
> really have an enforcement body.
>

Yeah, I could have worded it better... I guess what I should have asked, is
this rawhide and up, or should F20/21 packages be updated. Also, I'm
assuming this isn't important enough to rebuild packages for, but should be
done the next time the package is built for other reasons?


>
> RS> What about EPEL 5, 6, 7?
>
> Pretty sure 7 is OK, but in any case, EPEL has its own guidelines.
> Still, here's some magic:
>   %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
> Now everything supports %license.  I so wish there was an
> epel-rpm-config package that could hold this kind of thing.
>

It might be a good idea to add that to the wiki since many people, like
myself, prefer to have the spec files consistent even across Fedora/EPEL.



> RS> Should some basic steps be added there? Or perhaps a link to another
> RS> wiki page?
>
> Feel free to make a more concrete suggestion and I'll be happy to make
> the change.
>

I'm certainly not a mediawiki wizard so I could provide the content if
someone would help me format it. I think capturing best practices is
*always* a good idea :)

Thanks,
Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150128/5a49822a/attachment.html>