On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > Bryan O'Sullivan さんは書きました: >> >> Frankly, I think that the current version of the guidelines is fine. >> It's much better to have something not quite perfect where we can make >> progress than to be permanently stuck. So moving forwards with what we >> have suits me. > > I finally took a deep look at cabal-rpm (never actually used it before!;) > and realised that that is largely the source of all my problems with the > current guidelines... > > Below is a patch against darcs head which backports most of my changes to > the guidelines to cabal-rpm. If we're using cabal-rpm for packaging then we > really don't need to add rpm macros IMHO. > I want to move away from cabal-rpm actually. The biggest pro for the macros is that we need the code to make sense to other reviewers that are not experienced with this. Any time a package needs to do something using something other than one of the macros, then we can have an expert come in an evaluate it. Another reason for using the macros is that changes only need to be made to one place. While doing the guidelines, I had to make a number of changes to cabal-rpm, and were we not to use macros, every change to cabal-rpm would have to be backported to the packages in Fedora. I'm going to put together some templates today. -Yaakov -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
