Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > On 8/1/06, 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. > > Look at e.g. > > http://roo.no-ip.org/fish/darcs/fish.spec > > can you honestly say that 'nobody could understand the spec'? I understand it, but I concider myself not the average packagers and even for me it hurts my eyes. I know the only conditional stuff in there are the X-requires but thats a 3 times nested if. Now as a C-programmer I generally try to avoid nested conditional statements more then 2 levels deep, for a spec file 3 levels of nesting is just wrong. So I think your example actually makes a strong point for those objecting to one spec for all. Regards, Hans -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
