Update of the fish package

[Axel Liljencrantz]

On 8/1/06, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Then we must simply agree to disagree. Strongly.

As a C programmer, I try to avoid tripple-nested if-statements, but
duplicating 200 lines of code N times (where N is currently 4, but can
potentially be a large number) simply because 1-2 lines differ between
versions is an order of magnitude worse.

>
> Regards,
>
> Hans


-- 
Axel