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/spectemp... Consider something like the layout near the top of Fedora's spec template.
Now about the guidelines... ;-)
- "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? =)
- "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@togami.com