On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:30:27PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > I don't think there are valid reason to put fedora-specific spec file in > upstream. You can easily build a rpm with fedpkg. nack We've done this for years with all libvirt related packages and it has proved pretty userful for both end users and maintainers alike. For example, when upstream makes a change that would impact the RPM packaging, it is usually quicker & easier for the person making that change to do the RPM spec file change upstream at the same time, than for the downstream maintainer to waste time trying to figure out what the change was. By having an upstream RPM spec that is always buildable, it makes it easier for users to test out new releases that are not yet in the official distro repos, because again they don't have to figure out how to fix the RPM spec to work with latest code changes. Having a single canonical RPM spec that works across all current versions of RHEL & Fedora has also reduced the workload on the Fedora maintainers too. The included RPM spec also serves as a helpful guide for other distros figuring out how to package libvirt in non-RPM formats So yes, it might seem odd to include a downstream specific RPM spec in upstream, but in practice it has proved pretty useful over the 9+ years libvirt & related apps have been around Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel