now everything is done via rpm specfile, setup.py (and/or makefile) does nothing.
that's what i want to achieve: make specfile stupid simple and setup.py more complex,
to have tuna more friendly for rpm-less distros.
and that specfile is useless in age of tito, koji, copr and mock (what's more, stored
in bad place).
if so, i vote for tuna.spec.in without changelog part, modified only when some new file
will be added.
best regards
jiri kastner
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 03:07:00PM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 30/01/14 12:51, Jiri Kastner wrote:
> hi, i plan remove rpm folder in all packages and also makefile and
> move all setup/install tasks to setup.py. therefore all patches
> which are changing rpm folder and specfile are not going to be
> accepted :)
>
Just thinking aloud ... Is this so clever? What is the problem with
having the RPM directory and spec file there?
I would however, consider spec files shipped in a project to be more
"distro neutral". And then rpmbuild can be used on other
non-RHEL/Fedora platforms easily, such as SuSE and Mandrake/Mandriva,
to mention a few. I think of rpmbuild -t{a,b,s} <tarball> in particular.
For official inclusion in each of the distros, a different spec file
will most likely needed, but this spec file can then serve as a nice
template to start with.
Just my 2 cents.
- --
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlLqXIEACgkQIIWEatLf4HcN3ACeIrq9B67fsaNuiB6rPNRyJA0C
+iUAni/RH+KyOP1V/IQ9chqpRxDmGvkL
=wQ7s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tuna-devel mailing list
tuna-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/tuna-devel