clamav for epel looking for reviewer

Manuel Wolfshant wolfy at
Thu Dec 6 09:05:13 UTC 2007

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> 1) Is massive perl patches ok for Fedora packages or is it better to
>> generate the patch as a file and apply it directly. When I do it
>> myself, I prefer the second as it doesnt break my auto-buildsystem as
>> much as pulling in perl etc when I don't need it.
> There isn't any guideline either way. I usually prefer to use patches
> myself, but this spec is based on one from Dag, and he used the perl
> substitutions in there, so I left it in order to keep close to his spec.
> As far as I know there is no guideline prohibiting this...
It probably takes more resources in the builder to do a bunch of perl 
stuff then using sed which probably in turn takes more then a simple 
patch, but all methods are accepted and as long as it not confusing, all 
of them are acceptable. Just use whatever you feel comfortable with.

>> 2) file creation from inside of the SPEC. Is it better to have them as
>> seperate files or use cat inside the SPEC? Again.. I prefer seperate
>> files.. but I can understand having it in the spec means fix once
>> versus remember to fix a file you forgot about.
> Yeah, again it's a matter of taste. I don't think there is any
> guideline about which way to do things. Also again, I perfer seperate
> files, but am keeping it this way to stay close to the Dag spec. 
There is no specific guideline, AFAIK.
However I too almost always prefer to have separate files because you 
can then use rpm for management (compare access times, avoid overwriting 
modified files etc)
In this case I would be very much in favor of separate files, including 
the script for updating signatures. I do not think that compatibility 
with Dag's version is a big issue here.

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list