Re: Packaging golang for secondary architectures, go-srpm-macros

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2015-07-27, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dne 27.7.2015 v 12:00 Jan Chaloupka napsal(a):
>> You can say the same about perl-srpm-macros, ocaml-srpm-macros or
>> other *-srpm-macros package redhat-rpm-config has as a runtime
>> dependency.
>
> Yes, and I say that about them. You can ask Perl maintainers at minimum.
> The worst thing is that you already take them as an excuse to not do the
> right thing :/
>
Sometimes you need macros in minimal build root to influence resulting
source pacakges. Then the macros will be always available for everyone
anytime regardless being deliery by redhat-rpm-config or any other
package.

My reasoning for having specific macros in specific package instead of in
redhat-rpm-config is that it separates responsibility and
accountibility. If something goes wrong, locating the real cause by
comparing build root listing is easier than diffing redhat-rpm-config
files. Also letting tens of people commit into redhat-rpm-config does
not sound for me correct and safe.

-- Petr

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux