[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Upstream SPEC files

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:50:03 +0100, Michael Schwendt
<fedora wir-sind-cool org> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:27:47 -0700, Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
> > Looking through the mimedefang source code I see it comes with its own
> > spec file. While it does not look like the fedora extra ones.. I was
> > wondering if I should use it or use my own in packaging it for Extras.
> > The advantage is that bugs in it can be pushed upstream. The problem
> > is that it may not meet various fedora packaging criteria at some
> > point (It has a long comment area at the top of the spec file.)
> >
> > Advice?
> After a brief look, the included spec file would benefit from major
> cleanup and corrections.

Thanks.. I did have an alternate mimedefang that did several of your
recommendations. I will see if David Skoll will take it with the rest
of the items below in it.

> E.g. the %post script is just plain ugly. Lots of chown/chgrp/chmod calls
> and instructions printed to stdout. All that can go in favour of using
> %attr.
> The CVS log at the top in addition to the regular %changelog adds another
> place where to search for log entries. It requires you to scroll down
> before you can see the interesting bits of a spec file.
> ./configure and its first three arguments could be replaced with %configure.
> The %clean section is also over the top. A single "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT"
> is enough. Everything else is removed automatically for normal rebuilds.
> --
> fedora-extras-list mailing list
> fedora-extras-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list

Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]