Upstream SPEC files - was: Re: patch applied without package maintainers' approve

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

 



Dne 12. 11. 20 v 21:22 Adam Williamson napsal(a):
> If you're going to have this kind of "upstream" spec file...well, I
> wish you wouldn't. But if you do, *AT MINIMUM*, the "downstream" spec
> files need to have a clear explanation that there is an "upstream" spec
> file, with a justification as to why, and a link to it. At the very
> top. Otherwise there is no chance any other Fedora packager is going to
> find it.

This is actually a good idea. I have lots of such spec files.

Is it a good idea to document this in Packaging Guidelines? Something like:

  If upstream provides SPEC files and your SPEC is a copy you should put on top of SPEC
  file:
  # This SPEC file is a copy from upstream http://www.upstream.org/foo.spec

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [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