Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471575
--- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter <fabian(a)bernewireless.net> 2008-11-19 09:50:38
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Oops, to late... I've done bug 470066 in a more formal manner,
and put remarks
on bug 470547 and bug 470155
Just to be clear, I'm not a sponsor but I can help you with this package. It
was just a suggestion about the reviews without any further investigation on
your work.
(In reply to comment #6)
- In my case, the spec file is part of the source tree, living in the
same
svn repo as the source. I have actually thought about this... which
doesn't mean I'm sure. But to me it seems reasonable to use the svn
version in this case, since spec and source is always in sync. Or?
More about the release tag, see below.
- Auto(re)conf needs the gettext m4 macros in gettext-devel
I just quoted the guidelines. So, you are right.
(In reply to comment #7)
- Trying to find a balance in when to define macros I have
removed %pkg and %pkgdatadir, but kept %schemadir, %plugindir and
%download_url. If you insist, I'll remove them. But I feel they make
things a better e. g., by making the scriptlets a bit more more concise.
And personally, I avoid source lines > 72 chars; hence %download_url
I can live with that. Spec files are just easier to read for other packages
when only 'standard' macros are used.
- And still svn-based revision. I'm not stubborn, but a little
interested
what the arguments are in a situation when the spec file release is the
same as the source release... The reasons to stick to svn # are obvious,
but I don't have to complete picture.
I think that your release is a post release. The naming guidelines have some
examples.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_pa...
"Release: The initial value of the release should normally be "1%{?dist}".
Then, increment the number every time you release a new package for the same
version of software. If a new version of the software being packaged is
released, the version number should be changed to reflect the new software
version, and the release number should be reset to 1."
From my point of view the release tag should look like this
Release: 1.%{svnversion}svn%{?dist}
This way the name of the spec file didn't match the guidelines. I'm not an
expert on exceptions.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.