On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:18:23PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > * Explicit Requires > * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExplicitRequires > * Note that this contains an additional section about commenting > non-obvious items in spec files. ... which says: "Anything in the spec file which is not obvious should have a comment explaining it. Some examples of non-obvious items include (but are not limited to): * Some explicit requires * FHS violations * Changes to optflags * Not using %configure or make install * Provides/Obsoletes * Modified tarballs * Licensing or legal related changes" I trust these are really just examples, not a list of things that have to be commented on. And that reviewers who are blindly running through the guidelines and not paying much attention won't treat this as a bullet list of must-have comments. All MinGW packages violate FHS [previously discussed ad nauseam] by using /usr/i686-pc-mingw32. We also use a custom %_mingw32_configure macro instead of %configure. %configure isn't useful for non-autoconf packages, or for packages which have a ./configure script that isn't autoconf-generated. In fact "make install" won't work on packages that don't use make. Apart from creating unnecessary make-work for packagers, I wonder what the point of this is. A better guideline would just have this sentence and nothing else: "Anything in the spec file which is not obvious to a competent packager familiar with the relevant guidelines should have a comment explaining it." Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/ Fedora now supports 68 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
