[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] fedora-newrpmspec patch for php-pear



>>>>> "VS" == Ville Skytt <Ville> writes:

VS> IMHO with pretty nonintrusive changes to the suggested/submitted
VS> template, no new external macros at all would be needed.

I didn't realize that a ticket had been opened for that.  Honestly I
don't care what is accepted; I just think we need to make some forward
progress.  But after a quick look at your template, it does seem
really nice, especially the file list generation.  I wonder if we
couldn't do that for Python, where the complexity involving .pyo files
is often needlessly confusing.  Another topic, I guess.

Obviously it would be nice to not have to wait for an update to the
core php-pear package before we move ahead.  On the other hand, Joe
was nice enough to add the macros for us; we should at least be sure
not to conflict with them.

So what to do?  We can't really proceed with the guidelines (at least
for the PEAR bits) without knowing what's going into
fedora-newrpmspec.

We also really need to decide whether PECL modules need a template.
I'm guessing they do, but I haven't actually looked at one.

Finally, to answer a question in that ticket, all PEAR modules are
indeed noarch and all PECL modules are arch-specific, by definition as
I understand it.

 - J<


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]