On 6/29/06, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> wrote:
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).
I think the other templates should change to match mine. My style is
by far the cleanest and easiest on the eyes.
Why do we have a %{__rm} macro if it should not be used?
We should be consistent and use %{buildroot} so that we use the same
type of macros everywhere in the spec.
Indentation changed to line up Requires(postun):
%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?
This is not an issue. All pear packages are noarch and therefore no
%build or debuginfo packages need to be built.
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.
The %defines seem to work for me under mock, I'm not sure this is an issue.
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.
Cool, thx
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.
Yes, the only caveat is that a package like Foo_Bar really stores it's
files in a Foo/Bar/ directory, not a Foo_Bar/ directory as the current
spec file indicates.
I also added a
Provides: php-Foo-Bar = %{version}-%{release}
to meet the current (Draft) php guidelines, not sure I like this idea though
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
