On 01/06/2016 10:21 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 30.12.2015 v 23:13 Orion Poplawski napsal(a): >> On 12/30/2015 02:48 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> I've submitted a review for a separate python-macros package here: >>>> >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294904 >>>> >>>> This is what the FPC approved here >>>> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567#comment:12 to be added to the Fedora >>>> buildroots to provide the %python3_pkgversion macro needed for compatibility >>>> with the EPEL Python3 packaging guidelines. >>>> >>>> It also serves the much more important goal of getting the python macros out >>>> of the the individual python? packages to make it easier to update them. >>>> >>> Don't we normally name these something to the effect of >>> "<name>-srpm-macros"? For example, we have "go-srpm-macros" and >>> "perl-srpm-macros". Shouldn't this be named "python-srpm-macros" for >>> consistency purposes? >> I guess you're right, though we have a mix at the moment: >> >> blender-rpm-macros.noarch 1:2.76-2.fc24 rawhide >> erlang-rpm-macros.noarch 0.1.4-2.fc23 rawhide >> ghc-rpm-macros.x86_64 1.4.15-3.fc23 rawhide >> ghc-srpm-macros.noarch 1.4.2-2.fc23 rawhide >> gnat-srpm-macros.noarch 2-1.fc23 rawhide >> go-srpm-macros.noarch 2-3.fc24 rawhide >> kde-apps-rpm-macros.noarch 6:4.14.15-3.fc24 rawhide >> kernel-rpm-macros.noarch 36-1.fc24 rawhide >> kf5-rpm-macros.noarch 5.17.0-2.fc24 rawhide >> ocaml-srpm-macros.noarch 2-3.fc23 rawhide >> perl-srpm-macros.noarch 1-17.fc23 rawhide >> >> And some just "-macros": >> >> perl-macros.x86_64 4:5.22.1-355.fc24 koji >> python-macros.noarch 2.7.11-1.fc24 koji >> python3-pkgversion-macros.noarch 1-5.fc24 koji >> sip-macros.noarch 4.17-3.fc24 koji >> >> But it does look like it is the *-srpm-macros that tend to be in the buildroot. >> > > > And we have rubygem-devel and ruby-devel shipping some macros. I can > hardly understand why the packages should be in separate pacakge and why > there should be (s)rpm or macros mentioned. > > > Vít For normal, general use rpm macros I see no reason not to have them in a -devel package, or perhaps -rpm-macros if there is no -devel package. But it actually does strike me as appropriate to put only those macros needed for generating srpms into a -srpm-macros package which redhat-rpm-config then requires in order to get it into the buildroot, which seems to be the main current convention. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion@xxxxxxxx Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
