[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.

Jonathan

--
Axel


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