Packge review question (#642858)

[Eric "Sparks" Christensen]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 02:59, Sven Lankes <sven at lank.es> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 01:45:39PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
>> Sven helpfully posted his package for review.  In doing the package
>> review, though, I have a question about the Requires:
>>   Requires: drupal >= 6.0
>> Here's how I understand our situation, correct me if wrong:
>> * In F-14 and below, the 'drupal' package provides this capability.
>> * In devel (F-15 and later), the 'drupal' package provides this now,
>>   but in the future 'drupal6' will do so.
>> * In EL-5 currently, the 'drupal' package provides drupal = 5.23-1.el5
>>   (currently) and the 'drupal6' package provides drupal6 = 6.19-1.el5
>>   (currently)
>> So for now, should this Requires then be replaced by the following?
>> %if 0%{?fedora}
>> Requires: drupal >= 6.0
>> %endif
>> %if 0%{?rhel}
>> # Probably safe to assume that drupal6 will always provide drupal6 >= 6.0
>> Requires: drupal6
>> %endif
>
> While you're thoughts are certainly right, I'd tend to say that they're
> not relevant for the review as the review is for the fedora packages and
> it needs to be checked to work against what is currently in fedora.

While I might agree that they aren't relevant for the review (the
package meets current standards) I think we are just trying to figure
out a way to make this a smooth transition and remedy a problem that
was identified during the review.  But like Paul said, it's completely
up to the packager.  If you want to maintain several packages of the
same software then that is your decision.

>
> As for the fedora/rhel-conditional - I'm not sure if it's still
> neccessary to keep specs in sync across releases now that we can use
> the wonders of git and it's merges but that's up for the packager to
> decide and also not relevant in a fedora review request.

Agreed.  However these were problems that were identified during
review.  Had it been my package I would have wanted assistance on
making my package as fluid as possible so I wouldn't have to remember
that I have five different SPECs for the same package that all have to
be individually changed when an update is presented.  Again, I believe
this to be up to the packager to accept the recommendations or not.
Flexifilter has already been approved so this isn't going to affect
the status of that package, just trying to making maintenance easier.
>
> --
> sven === jabber/xmpp: sven at lankes.net

--Eric