On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 00:26, Matthias Saou wrote:
- Summary: I'd like to see an official suggestion as to whether
a
trailing
dot should be added or omitted. If would be prettier when all go by
at
install time :-)
What do you mean?
- %description and %prep shouldn't be stuck together for
readability
and
section separation.
+1
http://cvs.fedora.us/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/packages/fedora-rpmdevtools/spect...
Consider something like the layout near the top of Fedora's spec
template.
Now about the guidelines... ;-)
5) "The package may obsolete itself"... I really don't get that one!
When we hear the answer to this, can we have links from the RHLP page to
more detailed information describing "why" and examples where it is
used?
Can we Wiki this? =)
13) "If a newer RPM does not have a binary package that the
older
SRPMS
produced, the binary package not produced anymore must be
specified
with the Obsoletes: option in the new spec file."
I would also add something about encouraging to always use
versions
with "Obsoletes:" in order to avoid many kind of future issues
when
re-introducing packages for example.
Also, there is no mention of "Epoch:" usage, not even a quick note to
suggest not introducing any apart from when it's really the last
resort. I
guess people may want to stay out of the endless discussion for as
long as
possible ;-)
IIRC, I think I read someone mentioning somewhere that a list of
current
packages with full "n-e-v-r" would be maintained. With the current
implementation of epoch handling in rpm >= 4.2.1, this will become a
necessity when depending on specific versions of certain packages.
Responding to this in a new thread. Preparing flame retardant suit.
Warren Togami
warren(a)togami.com