Problems with core review

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 20:34 +0000, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:49:11AM -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > Here are the issues in question:
> > 
> > 1) Replace use of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR with %{SOURCEx}
> > 
> > I asked about this in #fedora-extras since I did not understand
> > rpmlints Error message. f13 responded by saying you should just use
> > %{SOURCEx}.
> > 
> > I agree with f13 on this issue because it is easier to identify in the
> > spec file where the source files are used.
> 
> Con: it makes renumering Sources a pain, it's harder to use since you 
> have to remember numbers not filenames.  This number/filename mapping 
> trick doesn't scale well as anybody who has maintained spec files with 
> more than a handful of patches knows.
> 
> Insufficient justification for change.
> 
> > 2) Add empty %build section even though its not required
> > 
> > All php-pear packages include an empty %build section and php-pear
> > should not be an exception.  This was disccussed at length when
> > creating the php-pear spec file template.  Ville has real world
> > examples how this can cause problems.
> 
> What are they, how do they apply to this package?
rpm doesn't generate debug-infos if %build is not present.

> > Technical reason for changing:  rpm is unpredictable with no %build,
> > consistency among all pear packages
> 
> It's worked predictably for the history of this package. 
Only if all those package had been noarch'ed.

If not, you surely have broken debug-infos.

Ralf