[Fedora-packaging] Open issues with the PHP guidelines
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
- 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