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

Re: Update of the fish package



On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:54:39 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:

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

It boils down to a matter of perspective. If you confront a reviewer with
an overloaded spec file, which fails to build _and_ contains several
obvious mistakes, several pitfalls and questionable sections, it becomes
obvious that the spec file complexity is the cause of maintenance
difficulties and decreased readability. In such a scenario I also strongly
encourage the packager to create a clean and easy-to-maintain spec file
instead of trying to hit many nails at once with a single hammer.

Often, such pseudo distribution-independent spec files become a mess and
work for only a few of the target distributions, because some
distribution-specific bugs and build problems remain and depend on
contributed fixes. In particular, when the packager does not have access
to all the supported dists.

Spec files for multiple distribution also result in superfluous changes (=
the packager trying to sync spec files without reason), which bear the risk
of breaking things by accident.

The more you think about it and the more you practise it, the more you
will like distribution-specific spec files. A single spec file for each
distribution. Incremental changes, small changes. And for many version
upgrades, you only need to touch Source, %version, %release and nothing
else.


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