Update of the fish package

[Hans de Goede]

Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> On 8/1/06, 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.
> 
> Look at e.g.
> 
> http://roo.no-ip.org/fish/darcs/fish.spec
> 
> can you honestly say that 'nobody could understand the spec'?

I understand it, but I concider myself not the average packagers and
even for me it hurts my eyes. I know the only conditional stuff in there
are the X-requires but thats a 3 times nested if. Now as a C-programmer
I generally try to avoid nested conditional statements more then 2
levels deep, for a spec file 3 levels of nesting is just wrong.

So I think your example actually makes a strong point for those
objecting to one spec for all.

Regards,

Hans