[Fedora-packaging] Open issues with the PHP guidelines

Tim Jackson lists at timj.co.uk
Fri Jun 30 10:49:36 UTC 2006

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

> 6) We need to work up specfile templates for all three situations if
>    appropriate and get them into fedora-rpmdevtools.

General point extending what I mentioned earlier: whilst I certainly 
wouldn't want for a minute to try to force it on anyone, would it be 
worth considering simply mandating "pear make-rpm-spec [package]" as the 
"official" way of generating a template spec? The main reasons are:

a) it seems a bit of duplication to have this in fedora-rpmdevtools when 
I'm working on it separately anyway, and the entire point why I took on 
PEAR_Command_Packaging was ultimately so that I could auto-generate 
specs for Fedora/RHEL. Upstream is of course done in a distro-neutral 
way, but my proposed FE package patches it (which is now simple thanks 
to the upstream changes I've made) to match Fedora conventions.

b) "pear make-rpm-spec" can incorporate additional time-saving logic 
that a static template with simple substitutions can't; some existing 
features include:

- prefilling %description

- generating stuff relating to docs dependent on whether or not the
   package actually includes docs (many don't)

Of course, there could be a hook in fedora-rpmdevtools which called out 
to "pear make-rpm-spec" if the above was liked but it was considered 
preferable to have all the template specs at least superficially 
generate-able from fedora-rpmdevtools.

I must stress that I'm not trying to "own" spec-template-generation for 
PEAR packages here, merely save duplication and hopefully see the 
existing work I've done in this area be useful. I'd warmly welcome any 
offers to co-maintain PEAR_Command_Packaging, the corresponding FE 
package, or both.


P.S. It doesn't really work atm, but my intention is also to make "pear 
make-rpm-spec" work for PECL packages too.

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list