Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"PH" == Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
PH> Is it just me or shouldn't packagers actually have a reasonable
PH> understanding of what's in their spec files?
Stuff creeps into specfiles to workaround rpm brokenness, deal with
bizarre bits of the buildsystem, changes in requirements between
Fedora versions, and more. I'm sorry, but if you require every
packager to understand all of that up front then I'm afraid you've set
the barrier way too high.
Or, look at it this way. You're a new packager, trying to package up
a perl module. There's a find line in the specfile template. You
don't think it does anything, but it's there in the template for a
reason, right? After all, those people who wrote the template must
know a whole lot more about the process than you do. Unfortunately
there's no descriptive comment or hint as to when you're supposed to
use and when you aren't. What might change to make it necessary? Is
that change completely within your control, or will perhaps some perl
update or buildsys switch make it necessary? How can you even know?
So just leaving it alone makes a ton of sense.
Easily solved by us just adding a single freaking line saying "don't
use this for noarch packages".
Perhaps a better idea, which wouldn't result in spec files cluttered
with comments, would be for each language SIG to have a page on the wiki
explaining the magic in their spec templates?
Paul.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
