begin quote
On 10 Jan 2003 11:15:54 +0200
Yanko Kaneti <yaneti declera com> wrote:
>
> All this gives? Imho more maintainability and portability. It would
> allow the person/vendor wishing to adapt the build system to his own
> setup by just adjusting the necessary rpmmacros. It would also result
> in less maintenace effort for the spec (you wouldnt have to copy one
> hack all over the place). It would make the "tarbuilding" of a rpm
> from the vanilla source a more predictable process.
>
>
> So, do you think this would work?
>
I guess I'm not really vouched to speak here, since I'm no longer
involved in using rpm based distributions, but i have some points here:
(yes, i come from this from the other perspective, having a .spec in
the .tar.{bz2,gz} is a great thing for those who make alternative
packages, Gentoo .ebuilds, ROCK format, urpm, whatever... having any
pre-formatted package thats easy to grasp "how its done" on the official
side is invaluable help when creating brand-new packages)
*) only depending on auto-dependency tracking is in my idea a "bad"
choice. having at least the general package interdepencencies set hard
in the .spec are good for giving other packagers a general view on what
depends on what.
*) Generalized handling of source locations. .spec allows you to
specify where to get the source from, with a ftp url.. Thats another
nice thing to have ;)
Gconf and schema installations are another thing that might need a good
overview
scrollkeeper is also an issue for some, since scrollkeeper modifies the
installed files so they no longer match md5sums, makes for an issue with
some packaging formats. how can that be handled nicely in rpm's .spec?
General packaging guidelines? are there any? How do we as the Gnome
project want the distributors to treat Gnome packages?
The gconf schema interpretions might be necessary to make a general
"Gnome .spec" macro for, since they do require some trickery, the
default process is to violate the building system, and then force itself
down into the deep recesses of the packagers discretion to find exactly
what schema files are installed during the process.
(that behaviour is bad for actions such as "rpm -tb <some.tar.bz2>")
portability, maintainability and generic items are a great thing.. Too
bad that theres no way to include a special package of "gnome macros"
for .spec.. .or none that I know of, someone here might know better.
//Spider
Manager of the Gentoo Gnome Team
Gnome Foundation Member
--
begin .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end
Attachment:
pgpu9EE6NXoHA.pgp
Description: PGP signature