On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 07:18:33PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 18:19 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:38:57PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > > > Hello again, > > > > > > > > > As I have been dealing with quite a few Fortran packages I have realized > > > that the current laissez-faire mentality may not be enough and a > > > standard is needed for file placement. > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fortran > > > > Unless I don't recall well, > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FortranModulesDir > > was accepted as a guideline. > > Actually, this guideline is broken [1], the directory has to be > versioned [2]. > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513985 > [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483765 This was discussed afterwards, if I recall well, it was said that it was not necessarily broken at each gfortran release, such that we would do rebuild only when we notice a change. In fact it is said as such in the guideline: Each gfortran release (from 4.1 to 4.2) may lead to an incompatible change in the .mod files. Therefore for each such gfortran update, this issue should be investigated, and a rebuild of the package that provide the .mod asked for on the devel announce file and done by the maintainers if needed. Are you unhappy with that? The problem with a versionned directory is that it would lead to many unneeded rebuilds since most of the minor gcc don't break the .mod formats and there are many minor gcc releases. Personnally, I am not opposed to having a versionned directory. In fact this would only mean a change in the _fmoddir macro definition, and maybe somebody willing to organize an automatic rebuild of all the packages installing .mod files. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
