Ville Skyttä wrote:
I don't personally care where the spec templates come from, but
all of them be generateable by fedora-newrpmspec. Its pre-filling
capabilities are pretty limited kludges at the moment, and sounds like
your stuff is capable of much more already, so as long as the result
meets the guidelines, I'd be glad to apply patches that add such a hook.
OK, great. I think you'd have a hard time replicating the *potential*
pre-filling capabilities of PEAR_Command_Packaging, since it's
intimately tied into PEAR and knows how to analyse the package's XML
file, work out deps etc.
In fact what I didn't mention before is that it does of course also
auto-generate the Requires:, which is a major bonus.
As soon as we're all settled on a template spec, high on my priority
list will be making php-pear-PEAR_Command_Packaging generate specs that
comply with that template format, including upstream changes if required
(although hopefully the development has reached a sufficiently advanced
stage now that upstream changes should be minimal or zero; most can
simply be achieved by patching/replacing the template.spec provided by
>From the hook POV, it would be easiest if "pear
take the package name in a command line option, and would be capable of
emitting the generated template to stdout, perhaps conditionally based
on existence of some other command line option. Maybe it already works
Nearly. Currently it takes the *filename* of a package tarball and
outputs the resulting template to stdout. Bear in mind that to do all
the clever stuff it does, it needs to have a copy of the actual package
tarball, not just the package name. But then if you're about to build an
RPM, you're going to need this anyway...
If there was enough demand I could build in a hook to go off to
and download the package tarball given a package name, but
unless there's a compelling reason this is probably adding unnecessary
complexity when a "wget" prior to calling make-rpm-spec will do the trick.
I wouldn't like a dependency on pear in rpmdevtools, so on pear
execution failures (eg. when not installed), newrpmspec should probably
just fall back to the generic template.
Fair enough; I'd had the exact same thought. In that case, there should
probably also be
a) an informational message telling you that this is happening
b) a way to get newrpmspec to use the generic template *in any case*, so
that if (for some weird reason) you don't want to download the actual
PEAR package and just get a template spec based on the package *name*
alone, you can.