Update of the fish package

[Jonathan Underwood]

On 01/08/06, Laurent Rineau
<laurent.rineau__fedora_extras at 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 CGAL¹, 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.