On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> "RS" == Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
RS> Is this retroactive on all supported versions of Fedora?
Packaging guideline changes are pretty much never retroactive; we don't
really have an enforcement body.
Yeah, I could have worded it better... I guess what I should have asked, is this rawhide and up, or should F20/21 packages be updated. Also, I'm assuming this isn't important enough to rebuild packages for, but should be done the next time the package is built for other reasons?
RS> What about EPEL 5, 6, 7?
Pretty sure 7 is OK, but in any case, EPEL has its own guidelines.
Still, here's some magic:
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
Now everything supports %license. I so wish there was an
epel-rpm-config package that could hold this kind of thing.
It might be a good idea to add that to the wiki since many people, like myself, prefer to have the spec files consistent even across Fedora/EPEL.
RS> Should some basic steps be added there? Or perhaps a link to another
RS> wiki page?
Feel free to make a more concrete suggestion and I'll be happy to make
the change.
I'm certainly not a mediawiki wizard so I could provide the content if someone would help me format it. I think capturing best practices is *always* a good idea :)
Thanks,
Richard
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
