[Fedora-packaging] Drafts for next Tuesday
ville.skytta at iki.fi
Sun Mar 23 16:22:47 UTC 2008
On Thursday 20 March 2008, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Perl Guidelines (spot) :
1) cpanspec should be pushed further down in the draft.
2) Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires:
"This is to ensure that all perl modules are built against the appropriate
version of perl."
This rationale is wrong - it doesn't ensure that, but that packages have a
dependency to a perl that uses stuff from dirs versioned with that version
3) ExtUtils::Build doesn't exist AFAIK, did you mean Module::Build?
> Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) :
> OpenOffice.org extensions guidelines (Caolan McNamara) :
These look mostly sane, will need to read them some more though.
> Secure BuildRoot (Lubomir Kundrak) :
-1 to any buildroot suggestion that doesn't propose implementing it internally
in rpm aiming for eventual deprecation and elimination of the BuildRoot tag
(and related "rm -rf"'s) in specfiles.
Anyway, specific to the submitted draft, both alternatives cause buildroot
trashing even with innocent "rpm -q --specfile foo.spec" or "rpmbuild -bp
foo.spec" or "rpmbuild -bs foo.spec".
Additionally, the second makes dangerous assumptions which can wreak havoc
in %clean when one overrides the build root (eg. %buildroot in ~/.rpmmacros).
> Register VirtualProvides (Patrice Dumas) :
+1 to the general idea, however I'm somewhat uncertain about
server(port_name), it needs more explanation. Consider for example the
tomcat5 package: it's configured to use port 8080 by default. I don't think
server(webcache) would describe it well at all. Also, changing servers to
run in non-default ports is pretty common and kind of breaks the "contract"
of server(port_name), but perhaps that's just a documentation issue.
More information about the Fedora-packaging