On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:48 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > 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. It should be discussed by the packaging committee. They are responsible for the packaging guidelines. FESCO will certainly weigh in as well. josh -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
