[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 16:14:10 +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote:

> To me, it seems that advocating always using the same approach to
> writing spec-files ignores the fact that some packages are a great
> deal more complicated than others. I would think trusting the common
> sense of the maintainers to make the right choice in individual cases
> instead of imposing a one size fits all solution makes the most sense.

Right. With the exception that packages, which are "more complicated than
others" very often become even more complicated when lots of conditional
code is added to the spec. Conditional sections introduce multiple paths
of execution. Fun starts with lots of %define's, a new conditional code
block at every third line, and ends with disabling or overriding global
rpm macros, sometimes even in ways that are clearly wrong for Fedora.
Further, common sense regularly finds its limits when during the Review
Process, the packager meets other packagers and possibly receives the
first comments on his package ever. Then, when apparently the packager
struggles to make the package build, and when it fails and fails and fails
and contains problems at install-time and run-time, and perhaps a reviewer
suggests fixes, then it can be a good idea to rethink the packaging
techniques and e.g. cut down a spec from 32KiB to less than a quarter of
that size (which has happened before).

Anyway, let's not generalise. ;)

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