[Fedora-packaging] Open issues with the PHP guidelines

[Christopher Stone]

On 6/29/06, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi> wrote:
> 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).

I think the other templates should change to match mine.  My style is
by far the cleanest and easiest on the eyes.

Why do we have a %{__rm} macro if it should not be used?
We should be consistent and use %{buildroot} so that we use the same
type of macros everywhere in the spec.
Indentation changed to line up Requires(postun):

> %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?

This is not an issue.  All pear packages are noarch and therefore no
%build or debuginfo packages need to be built.


> 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.

The %defines seem to work for me under mock, I'm not sure this is an issue.


> 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.

Cool, thx

>
> 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.

Yes, the only caveat is that a package like Foo_Bar really stores it's
files in a Foo/Bar/ directory, not a Foo_Bar/ directory as the current
spec file indicates.

I also added a
Provides:         php-Foo-Bar = %{version}-%{release}
to meet the current (Draft) php guidelines, not sure I like this idea though