On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 13:40 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 6/29/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 6) We need to work up specfile templates for all three situations if > > appropriate and get them into fedora-rpmdevtools. > > I have put up what I think is a good template for pear modules here: > http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/spectemplate-pear.spec > > Comments welcome. Cosmetics: matching the existing style of other templates in rpmdevtools would be desirable (rm instead of %{__rm}, $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of %{buildroot}, indentation width at the top). %build section missing, see eg. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/192422 why that may not be a good idea. The template is noarch, so the debuginfo problem isn't a problem here, but adding an empty %build section might avoid some nasty surprises in the future. By the way, are all pear module packages noarch? Do those %defines at the top work in mock/plague setups where pear is not installed at the time the build begins? I think someone reported a problem with the similar approach taken in the python spec template in configurations where python is not in the initial set of packages (which could be a bug, but pear not being there is not). One possible fix would be to not do those defines, but to generate a filelist in %install and use that in %files, and drop the %defines altogether. It would be nice to have rpmlint bugs reported instead of cluttering specfiles with comments and workarounds like the one in %post. I'll see if I can do something about it. It's good to see the Foo_Bar/Foo-Bar placeholders in this phase, but they'll probably be emptied and auto-replaced by newrpmspec if/when the template enters rpmdevtools. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
