On 01/08/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 07:43, Laurent Rineau wrote: > I don't understand the point. As an upstream developper of CGAL¹, for > example, I would prefere that the spec file for Fedora is the same as the > one we use internally to generate development snapshots. Yes the resulting > spec file is quite an advanced one, because of that. But if I can prove > that I have written it, and can maintain it, what is the problem, from the > FE point of view? The resulting RPMs are not bloated because of the > complexity of the src.rpm file. Because when a security flaw comes around and you're not there to fix it, somebody else has to be able to understand your spec and be able to massage a patch into it. Ditto for a forced rebuild, or for any number of things. This is a community project, you have to think in terms of somebody else being able to maintain your spec file, so you'll want to make it as easy as possible for somebody to do this, and that means clean as possible specs and as less complicated as possible.
This is of course a very strong argument that is hard to disagree with. The fact we're having this discussion though reflects a lack of a firm decision on the matter and a solid packaging guideline reflecting the outcome of that decision. I would take this to the FESCO meeting, but I am never able to have IRC connection during FESCO meeting times (work restrictions). Hopefully someone else will bring it up. Jonathan. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
