src.rpm standards

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:46:25 -0500, Gene C. wrote:

> Ok, this did not get a rise from anyone on fedora.us so lets try here ...

Well, waiting just 24 hours for replies before you take an unimportant
topic to a more popular list is a rather short period. Maybe wait till
weekend for first comments to arrive.
 
> One thing that has always annoyed me about some packages are the "extra" 
> source files they plug into the SOURCE directory.  While most and all "good" 
> rpms have the package version id on all tarballs, patches, and other 
> "official" files.

Ugh. I consider patch files with a version in their file name bad style.
First of all, patches should be shipped upstream. Second, who cares
whether a patch is for v1.0 when it still applies cleanly with v2.0?

> Then there are the "extra" files.  These are named 
> absolutely anything.  

Examples?

> If your are in the process of building two separate 
> packages but they have a name conflict, you will never know except that the 
> result may not perform/operate as expected and your will never know why.

This is what I have in my ~/.rpmmacros:

%_sourcedir     %{_topdir}/SOURCES/%{name}-%{version}
%_specdir       %{_sourcedir}

> I am not sure what the standard should be but I believe that there should be 
> one.

Keep your src.rpm contents in a clean directory. ;)
 
> While I am comfortable with a package xxx version=2.3.4 having a patch file 
> named xxx-1.2.3-fixit.patch because it was developed on version 1.2.3 but 
> still applies to version 2.3.4, that is OK with me.

Heh, see above. ;)

I like version-less patch file names, such as foo-dialog.c.patch,
foo-configure.patch, foo-segfaults.patch or foo-CAN-2003-1234.patch

> But, when some package xxx has a file named perhaps "version", that is 
> something that should not be happening.

Don't understand this example. Is this a specific package you have
in mind?
 
> I assume that the various automated build systems start with a clean set of 
> directories for each build, this may not be true for individuals (it is 
> certainly not true for me).
> 
> OK, what do you call think about this?

Packager's freedom.

Encourage packagers to use reasonable and clear file names, but don't
force them.

--