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

Re: Update of the fish package

On 8/1/06, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan underwood gmail com> wrote:
On 01/08/06, Axel Liljencrantz <liljencrantz gmail com> wrote:
> Thanks for the tip, that makes a lot of sense. I provide you with a
> revised, unified monster. It is hardcoded to handle all known fedora
> versions correctly, and in case of a non-fedora system, it falls back
> to checking the layout of the filesystem and performing an educated
> guess as to the correct dependencies.

It is my understanding that including cruft in the spec file to allow
it to build on non fedora distributions is strongly discouraged in
extras - the spec files in fedora extras are for fedora. So I would
suggest removing the %if 0%{?fedora} parts.

That said, I don't see any directives in the packaging guidelines
about this - perhaps we need clarification on this matter.

As I said in one of my earlier mails, for me there is a benefit in
maintaining only one spec file instead of many. I will of course
respect fedora guidelines, but if it would be acceptable to have this
rather small amount of non-fedora cruft in the spec it would make life
a bit easier for me.

There is also a small potential for confusion if the spec file that
ships in the fish tarball is different from the one Fedora uses, not a
big deal, but a small source of possible bugs and confusion.



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