On 7/26/06, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nope. We should try not to purposefully stick our hand in any fires. If we find a problem, it should be fixed, but promoting practices that we know risk triggering bugs when there are simple, straightforward, and clean ways to code it instead is just good sense.
I don't see this as sticking a hand in a fire. It is simply the fact that removing %build does not affect php-pear packages, there is no reason to add it. If not adding it causes some problem with the php-pear packages, then this should be identified. So far no one has identified such problem. We should not try to do preemptive maintenance on our spec files and add a bunch of extra cruft just because one problem occurred in a package that has binaries. If there is a problem with binary packages not using %build, then this should be fixed. You can patch this spec file temporarily with a %build until the problem is fixed, but don't start imposing standards on other spec files that do not have this issue. Until a problem is identified with php-pear packages, no %build should be added. If a problem is identified, then the problem should be noted as a bug and then we can add %build to the spec files. There has not been any indication as far as I can see that not including %build is going to cause unpredictable results in any way other than not building a debuginfo package which is not required for php-pear packages anyway. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
