Packge review question (#642858)

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 07:01:49AM -0400, Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> 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.

Toshio provided a really great idea in another thread, which was to
have the drupal package in Fedora add something like:

  Provides: drupal6 = %{version}

That way all the module packages' spec files, across all branches,
could simply do:

  Requires: drupal6 >= <...>

And simplify life when branching those packages for EL-5 and EL-6.
Seems like a win-win, if Jon doesn't mind making that change.  What do
you think, Sven and Jon?

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com