Update of the fish package

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:48 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 01/08/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 August 2006 07:43, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Because when a security flaw comes around and you're not there to fix it,
> > somebody else has to be able to understand your spec and be able to massage a
> > patch into it.
> >
> > Ditto for a forced rebuild, or for any number of things.  This is a community
> > project, you have to think in terms of somebody else being able to maintain
> > your spec file, so you'll want to make it as easy as possible for somebody to
> > do this, and that means clean as possible specs and as less complicated as
> > possible.
> 
> This is of course a very strong argument that is hard to disagree
> with. The fact we're having this discussion though reflects a lack of
> a firm decision on the matter and a solid packaging guideline
> reflecting the outcome of that decision. I would take this to the
> FESCO meeting, but I am never able to have IRC connection during FESCO
> meeting times (work restrictions). Hopefully someone else will bring
> it up.

It should be discussed by the packaging committee.  They are responsible
for the packaging guidelines.  FESCO will certainly weigh in as well.

josh