From: Thorsten Leemhuis on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/2917#note_1851221485 > I added the tar because 1) the content are visible in the code If you use kernel-ark: sure. But if you live downstream and take the SRPM as your starting point it's a tarball, which makes things harder to review and adjust. We also have lot of other files we all list one by one in the .spec instead of bundling them in tarballs; makes me wonders if the Fedora packaging guidelines even allow such bundling. But maybe that approach is something just I find odd and dislike slightly. Would be good to know if others have similar feelings about it; if not it might be fine to just ignore my reservations. > placeholder in kernel.spec Take for example these lines from redhat/kernel.spec.template: ``` %define specrpmversion %%SPECRPMVERSION%% %define specversion %%SPECVERSION%% %define patchversion %%SPECKVERSION%%.%%SPECKPATCHLEVEL%% ``` Things like %%SPECRPMVERSION%% are replaced by a proper value when the real spec file used later is generated from the template. This is done by redhat/scripts/genspec/genspec.sh. I I wonder if a similar approach should be used here. But as I said, this is a bit more complicated, as lines handling them (e.g. Source<n>: entries and commands to put those files in the right place) would need to be created dynamically for each files found redhat/addons/ -- _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
