11:50 a.m.
I filed https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/553 to tighten up the naming
of spec files. Currently the guidelines are a little loose with regards
to this. I thought we tightened them up a long time ago, but I guess
not.
Here is the contents of the ticket to save you a click:
I thought that at some point we tightened up the spec naming to
absolutely require that the specfile for package asdfg be called
asdfg.spec. However, the current guidelines say:
The spec file should be named using the %{name}.spec scheme. This is
to make it easier for people to find the appropriate spec when they
install a src.rpm.
There is normally no need to include the %{version} in the spec file
name. If you are packaging multiple versions of a package for
simultaneous use, they should already reflect the version in the
%{name}.spec scheme (refer to Multiple Packages with the same base
%name for details). In normal cases adding the version can cause the
%spec file's history to be lost when a package's version is upgraded.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
On IRC today it was mentioned that fedpkg will look for any spec and
pick the first one it finds (in os.istdir() order, so it's pretty much
random). I'm thinking we should just tighten up the language here to
say that you must call the spec %{name}.spec, and in addition move that
section to the main guidelines.
Or am I missing something? If there's a valid reason for having a
differently-named spec file, I can think of what it would be. This
would allow fedpkg to tighten up its method for finding the spec file,
which would in turn allow people to check in other files named *.spec
(for local edits or different compilation options, for example) without
fear of fedpkg picking the wrong one.
Proposed language:
The spec file '''must''' be named
<code>%{name}.spec</code>. That is,
if your package is named <code>asdfg</code>, the spec file must be
named <code>asdfg.spec</code>.
Placed in a section "Spec Naming" just before "Spec Legibility" in
the
main guidelines page.
- J<
12:05 p.m.
Le 28/07/2015 18:50, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
Or am I missing something? If there's a valid reason for having
a
differently-named spec file,
The only case I'm aware if is SCL where the same spec can be use to
generate various package (1 per SCL)
With
Name: %{?scl-pefix}foo
So foo.spec can create
foo-1.0.0-1.src.rpm
scl1-foo-1.0.0-1.src.rpm
scl2-foo-1.0.0-1.src.rpm
...
Remi
P.S. and yes I still hope sometime SCL will be allowed in Fedora.
Shame on us for this.
/me still dreaming.
2:35 a.m.
Review guidelines [1] already states:
"*MUST*: The spec file name must match the base package |%{name}|, in
the format |%{name}.spec| unless your package has an exemption."
Vít
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Dne 28.7.2015 v 18:50 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
I filed https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/553 to tighten up the
naming
of spec files. Currently the guidelines are a little loose with regards
to this. I thought we tightened them up a long time ago, but I guess
not.
Here is the contents of the ticket to save you a click:
I thought that at some point we tightened up the spec naming to
absolutely require that the specfile for package asdfg be called
asdfg.spec. However, the current guidelines say:
The spec file should be named using the %{name}.spec scheme. This is
to make it easier for people to find the appropriate spec when they
install a src.rpm.
There is normally no need to include the %{version} in the spec file
name. If you are packaging multiple versions of a package for
simultaneous use, they should already reflect the version in the
%{name}.spec scheme (refer to Multiple Packages with the same base
%name for details). In normal cases adding the version can cause the
%spec file's history to be lost when a package's version is upgraded.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
On IRC today it was mentioned that fedpkg will look for any spec and
pick the first one it finds (in os.istdir() order, so it's pretty much
random). I'm thinking we should just tighten up the language here to
say that you must call the spec %{name}.spec, and in addition move that
section to the main guidelines.
Or am I missing something? If there's a valid reason for having a
differently-named spec file, I can think of what it would be. This
would allow fedpkg to tighten up its method for finding the spec file,
which would in turn allow people to check in other files named *.spec
(for local edits or different compilation options, for example) without
fear of fedpkg picking the wrong one.
Proposed language:
The spec file '''must''' be named
<code>%{name}.spec</code>. That is,
if your package is named <code>asdfg</code>, the spec file must be
named <code>asdfg.spec</code>.
Placed in a section "Spec Naming" just before "Spec Legibility" in
the
main guidelines page.
- J<
--
packaging mailing list
packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
10:30 a.m.
Indeed they do, but that doesn't actually match what the packaging
guidelines say. The review guidelines can easily get out of date; I
know I haven't been checking there to see if anything needs to be
updated to match the packaging guidelines. Of course, if anyone spots
something there that's incorrect or outdated they need only let me know.
- J<
2:26 p.m.
On 28/07/15 11:50 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
On IRC today it was mentioned that fedpkg will look for any spec and
pick the first one it finds (in os.istdir() order, so it's pretty much
random).
Was bitten by this few days back:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243546
(perhaps this bug was mentioned in the chat)
--
Jan
3187
days inactive
3188
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jan Pokorný -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Remi Collet -
Vít Ondruch