Otto Urpelainen <oturpe(a)iki.fi> writes:
Dan Čermák kirjoitti 18.7.2021 klo 23.38:
> Otto Urpelainen <oturpe(a)iki.fi> writes:
>
>> Dan Čermák kirjoitti 17.7.2021 klo 23.10:
>>> Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> What is the situation wrt new packages? Should we enforce the use of
>>>> rpmautospec during reviews or is it completely optional?
>>>
>>> I think we should encourage the usage of rpmautospec for new packages,
>>> provided that the packager feels comfortable enough to use it. E.g. I
>>> wouldn't suggest it for someone's first package. But this
shouldn't
>>> become a *MUST*, at least not yet.
>>
>> I am curious regarding the reasons for not recommending rpmautospec for
>> new maintainers? It is an automation feature that removes manual steps
>> from the process. Using it is simpler than doing the same manually. I
>> think we should offer the simplest possible process for newcomers and
>> only recommend manual overrides for use cases that automation cannot
>> handle (yet).
>
> Well, I think that a total newcomer is already struggling enough to
> produce a good spec file for their first package, but now they also need
> to keep in mind that their changelog is tied to the git history (and can
> thus not be changed easily anymore). Back when I started packaging, I
> found a lot of the details quite confusing and was building packages on
> copr and locally for a few years before I dared to go near koji. At
> least for me using rpmautospec would've been another one of these
> confusing details. That's why I would only recommend its usage, until
> most other build system out there use something comparable and beginners
> can be expected to know this concept already.
Understood. That makes sense. This is a case of different backgrounds.
The only rpm packages I have ever built are Fedora official packages.
From that angle, using rpmautospec is just simpler. In your case, it is
the other way round.
Yeah, so for a package review I'd suggest the usage of rpmautospec if
the packager is comfortable with that, but wouldn't enforce it for now.
Cheers,
Dan