[Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055


Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot at l |
                   |aposte.net)                 |




--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2008-12-19 16:18:33 EDT ---
I really know next to nothing about rpmdevtools, which is just a way to expose
a spec template library to me, and it would have been great to have those
remarks before the stuff was approved FPC and FESCO side and set in stone.
(there was more than a month of public RFC phase)

Anyway

> 1) Looks like simply dropping it would be a regression…

There are two templates because reviews show there are two different use cases
and they really are different patterns that do not fit in a single template

> 2) Also, seems that what rpmdev-newspec would replace in the templates
> contained in fontpackages would no longer be the right thing; at least
> FONTNAME has changed to <FONTNAME> 

I've tried to keep things consistent and put stuff to be replaced in brackets
yes. If there is some other convention that would make it easier for you,
please say so.

> 3) The font spec templates in the fontpackages package use %{buildroot} syntax
> instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

The rpm devs have announced they'll be internalising buildroot creation so
anything that tries to manipulate it from scripts is doomed mid-term anyway.
And %{buildroot} is both valid and more consistent with the rest of the
template

> 4) Indentation of stuff after all Foo: tags is different from every other spec
> template that we have in rpmdevtools.

I don't much care about this part and I doubt anyone will complain if I change
it now

So I can change 4. For the rest if it's too much of a problem to you I can put
the templates somewhere else in the filesystem. Bearing in mind that they are
the new official Fedora templates, so the current rpmdevtools template will put
induce packagers into doing stuff that will be blocked on review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.