[Fedora-packaging] Open issues with the PHP guidelines

Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi
Thu Jun 29 21:02:28 UTC 2006

On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 13:40 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On 6/29/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> > 6) We need to work up specfile templates for all three situations if
> >    appropriate and get them into fedora-rpmdevtools.
> I have put up what I think is a good template for pear modules here:
> http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/spectemplate-pear.spec
> Comments welcome.

Cosmetics: matching the existing style of other templates in rpmdevtools
would be desirable (rm instead of %{__rm}, $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of
%{buildroot}, indentation width at the top).

%build section missing, see eg. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/192422 why
that may not be a good idea.  The template is noarch, so the debuginfo
problem isn't a problem here, but adding an empty %build section might
avoid some nasty surprises in the future.  By the way, are all pear
module packages noarch?

Do those %defines at the top work in mock/plague setups where pear is
not installed at the time the build begins?  I think someone reported a
problem with the similar approach taken in the python spec template in
configurations where python is not in the initial set of packages (which
could be a bug, but pear not being there is not).  One possible fix
would be to not do those defines, but to generate a filelist in %install
and use that in %files, and drop the %defines altogether.

It would be nice to have rpmlint bugs reported instead of cluttering
specfiles with comments and workarounds like the one in %post.  I'll see
if I can do something about it.

It's good to see the Foo_Bar/Foo-Bar placeholders in this phase, but
they'll probably be emptied and auto-replaced by newrpmspec if/when the
template enters rpmdevtools.

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list