On 05/24/2013 01:37 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2013-05-24, Jonathan Dieter <jdieter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 08:03 +0000, Petr Pisar wrote:
Do you know virtual packages are forbidden in Fedora?
Sorry, I just scanned through the guidelines and didn't see this
anywhere. Do you mind citing a reference, please?
Well it's probably not forbidden by guidelines, but I've heard this rule
many times. There exists a thread on fedora-packaging mailing list
<http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2009-January/005481.html>.
What's generally frowned upon is the "task-foo" style gigantic
metapackages, but metapackages are used in Fedora for more specific
purposes. Take xorg-x11-drivers or wine for example.
I also think rpmlint considers empty package as an error and I remember
I saw an rpmbuild run that did not produce an sub-package just because
there was no %files section.
Missing %files section is different from an empty %files section: a
non-existing %files section indeed causes no package to be generated
(which various people are taking advantage of for simplifying
conditional builds), but empty %files section is perfectly legal, always
been.
- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
