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

Re: Update of the fish package



On 01/08/06, Laurent Rineau
<laurent rineau__fedora_extras normalesup org> wrote:
> 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.

I don't understand the point. As an upstream developper of CGAL┬╣, for example,
I would prefere that the spec file for Fedora is the same as the one we use
internally to generate development snapshots. Yes the resulting spec file is
quite an advanced one, because of that. But if I can prove that I have
written it, and can maintain it, what is the problem, from the FE point of
view? The resulting RPMs are not bloated because of the complexity of the
src.rpm file.

Well, as I said - it's my understanding, and my understanding is often
a misunderstanding :).

Anyway - it was really based on a recollection of the courier-mta
packaging thread, see eg.
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-June/msg00415.html

I guess we need some clarification here - is other distro stuff in the
spec file OK or not from a FE packaging perspective? FESCO?

Jonathan.


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