[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217





--- Comment #18 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-07-18 15:01:45 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > The guidelines only demand that macro usage is consistent. This means not
> > to mix e. g. %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. The rest is up to the
> > maintainer.
> 
> Because at present there is an *inconsistent* mixture of %{name} and
> "geany-plugins" used in the specfile. Consistency is the key here, I agree.

Let me repeat what I said before: The *macro* usage needs to be consistent,
this means not mixing different macro styles. There is no need to replace every
appearance of "geany-plugins" with a macro, this is up to the maintainer, e. g.
many people consider using %{name} in the URL or Source0 tag, since it makes
copy & paste harder.


(In reply to comment #17)
> I would recommend calling the subpackages %{name}-foo (i.e. geany-plugins-foo)
> rather than geany-plugin-foo for consistency with other plugin bundles (eg.
> claws-mail-plugins-*).

Blame me, this was my suggestion. IMO it should be "plugin", because each
package only contains a single plugin. We had this in other packages as well in
the past (e. g. audaciuos-plugin-*), but obviously this has be changed in the
meantime, so I agree with you.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.