On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Remi Collet <Fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Le 17/02/2018 à 10:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit :
>> On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
>>> Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit :
>>
>>>> I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
>>>> older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL).
>>>> Maybe something like the following is better for people who have a spec
>>>> file they might reuse on systems that might not have this macro:
>>>>
>>>> # Only the latest Fedora and EPEL have these scriptlets,
>>>> # older, or not up to date, Fedora and plain RHEL don't.
>>>> %if 0%{?ldconfig_scriptlets:1}
>>>> %ldconfig_scriptlets libs
>>>> %ldconfig_scriptlets libelf
>>>> %else
>>>> %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>>> %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>>> %post libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>>> %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>>> %endif
>>
>>> Even simpler
>>
>>> %if 0%{?fedora} < 28
>>> %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %postun libs - p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %post libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %endif
>>
>> This is wrong because. This macro is defined on all EPEL and Fedora, so Mark's
>> way is correct (almost).
>>
>>> Because the ldconfig_scriptlets stuff only work in koji, not in other
>>> build system (brew, cbs, ...)
>>
>> This is not a problem for Fedora.
>
> This is exactly what Mark message was about (older RHEL or Fedora)
>
> Definitively we have a very different vision of packaging.
>
> You are trying to impose "your vision" as the only acceptable one
> without any respect for other packagers which may have different vision
> and different goal.
I don't understand that argument. What goal other than "providing good
packages for fedora" could there be for fedora packagers?
> And this is probably the reason of some much discussions about recent
> changes.
>
> And this create so much frustration on my side (and perhaps some
> others), BTW, we will never agree.
>
> And another point, message for all packagers, you don't have to take
> care of maintaining your package, Igor the robot will do the work for you.
That's neither a fair towords Igor, nor productive criticism.
While I agree that the changes could have been communicated better, I
am glad that _finally_ someone is cleaning up all the unnecessary
cruft that has accumulated in fedora .spec files.
Additionally, there are lots of packages that look like their
maintainer hasn't touched them in years (for example, the only git
commits are from mass rebuilds), so some maintainers _already_ don't
take care of maintaining their packages and adapting them to comply
with the current Packaging Guidelines. Doing incremental mass cleanups
and fixups seems to be the only workable solution to bring them
(barely) up to current Guidelines.
> IMHO, we should explain things, explain why they are needed, and
> encourage people to understand and do their work.
>
>
>
>
> Remi, terribly disappointed by the way the project goes.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
