[Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 23 18:17:57 UTC 2008

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


--- Comment #4 from Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi>  2008-12-23 13:17:56 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> 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

I understand that.  In comment 1 (the Suggestion: part to point 1) I outlined
how rpmdevtools could adapt to that and do the right thing.  Could you comment
on that?  This is really the crucial point - if it can't be sanely done, the
rest of the points are pretty much moot as in that case there's not much at all
rpmdevtools can do with the new font templates.

> > 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.

All that matters is that rpmdev-newspec knows what to look for, and what it is
looking for is a placeholder that can be assumed to be robustly
sed-replaceable, and that it does not change between spec template revisions. 
Please just confirm what it'll be (see Suggestion for point 2 in comment 1).

> 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

This has nothing to do with what sets the value of buildroot or how, and
nothing to do with modifying it.  This is purely a stylistic issue which people
have very strong opinions on: some people prefer to write specfiles using shell
style variables, others rpm macro style.  For example whether one wants to
write "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" or "rm -rf %{buildroot}" in specfiles.  We have
support for honoring the user's preference in place in newspec if the templates
are written using the shell style variable syntax - by writing them in macro
style that preference is taken away (or additional code would need be added
that does it the other way around, but I'm not sure if it can be robustly
done).  Again, see Suggestion for point 3 in comment 1 for more details how
this works currently.

> For the rest if it's too much of a problem to you I can put
> the templates somewhere else in the filesystem.

If we can't get rpmdevtools to do anything useful with the templates from
fontpackages, it makes no sense to put them in rpmdevtools' dir structure,
that'd just add confusion.  But I don't think there's a reason to go there -
all it takes to support regressionless transition to the new font spec
templates from rpmdevtools POV is outlined in questions in this comment (and
comment 1) above.

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.

More information about the fonts-bugs mailing list