Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736861
--- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27(a)gmx.at> 2011-10-07 03:24:16 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Use the name macro in Source0 and the files section.
I don't fully agree with that. I used explicit "hgview" where it didn't
refer
to the package name or upstream tar name. I don't think this increased use of
%{name} increases the readability or flexibility of the spec. But ok ...
It depends, I think. The basic rule is to call the package like the tarball. In
that case, it fits well. If you're going to rename the package for a different
reason, it doesn't help.
> BuildRequires and Requires are separated by spaces, not commas.
Even better:
> Put each on a separate line.
Yes, that is another way of doing it, but I don't see any
requirement/preference for that in the Packaging Guidelines.
FWIW
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package and
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/R...
describe it as a comma-separated list.
It would be great of the guidelines could help making it more consistent.
You're right. The reason why I suggested putting them on separate lines is, you
can spot duplicates easily. I saw that happen a couple of times, when the list
of BRs was long. They're also easier to comment out.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.