Hi, On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:10:43AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > Ideally, every > line in a package definition (specfile or what have you) is only there > because of some exception from the typical case. For well-behaved > upstreams, the perfect packaging description would be _empty_. With all > of our legacy, we can't really do that*, but I think it's better if we > move _towards_ it rather than away. It makes package creation easier > (and easier to automate), and it makes _review_ much _much_ easier, > simply because there's less to look at and everything you do look at > should be significant rather than boilerplate. So, looking at the boilerplate that is present in all (or nearly all) libraries I maintain, I see: 1. Rpath removal https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath sed -i \ -e 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' \ -e 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' \ libtool 2. Removal of .la files 3. Removal of doc files, installed by make install, which are packaged in a subpackage, because otherwise they would be duplicated in the main package https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 All three are common and required by the guidelines. So, if you are going to fight boilerplate, I respectfully suggest that you start with these... D. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
