On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 20:34 +0000, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:49:11AM -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > Here are the issues in question:
> >
> > 1) Replace use of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR with %{SOURCEx}
> >
> > I asked about this in #fedora-extras since I did not understand
> > rpmlints Error message. f13 responded by saying you should just use
> > %{SOURCEx}.
> >
> > I agree with f13 on this issue because it is easier to identify in the
> > spec file where the source files are used.
>
> Con: it makes renumering Sources a pain, it's harder to use since you
> have to remember numbers not filenames. This number/filename mapping
> trick doesn't scale well as anybody who has maintained spec files with
> more than a handful of patches knows.
>
> Insufficient justification for change.
>
> > 2) Add empty %build section even though its not required
> >
> > All php-pear packages include an empty %build section and php-pear
> > should not be an exception. This was disccussed at length when
> > creating the php-pear spec file template. Ville has real world
> > examples how this can cause problems.
>
> What are they, how do they apply to this package?
rpm doesn't generate debug-infos if %build is not present.
> > Technical reason for changing: rpm is unpredictable with no %build,
> > consistency among all pear packages
>
> It's worked predictably for the history of this package.
Only if all those package had been noarch'ed.
If not, you surely have broken debug-infos.
Ralf
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
