2011/1/15 Remy CLOUARD <[email protected]>: > Hi there, Hello, > I just imported the RPM Spec File Syntax page in the wiki. > > It’s located here: http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=spec_syntax > > Please review this page as it’s one of the most important one for the > beginning of the mentoring process, with the RPM Howto page (yet to be > imported). > > Some comments on this page: > - Patch naming: > > I’m not sure we should go that far for the patch naming policy, and in > practice it’s not what I’ve seen up till now. > > Here’s a proposal: > Patches must be named in a very explicit manner to make it very clear to > what version it was originally applied. To that end, a patch needs to > follow the convention of > [package_name]-[version]-[description].patch: > > * [package_name] is the name of the package it applies against, such > as 'shadow-utils' or 'gnupg' > * [version] is the version of the program this patch was developed > against, such as 1.0. The name of the patch should not change, even > when it is rediffed, because the version allow to see in a blink since > when this patch has been there. If you happen to see a patch that does > not apply anymore, and rediff it, ask the package maintainer if it has > been sent upstream, and why it hasn’t been merged, and send it > upstream if you think it should be merged. > * [description] is a short description of the patch's purpose. > > Example: foo-1.0-fix-str-fmt.patch for a patch that fixes string format > errors
It would also be nice to add some comment inside like we're trying to do in our kde's packaging policy ( http://www.mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=kde4_packaging_policy ) aka # # Description: # Forwarded: # Bug: # Author: # > - Buildroot changed from the original page > After reviewing it again, I see that some links have to be made to the > corresponding pages, and an explicit license should be mentionned as > well. > [...] Regarding the spec we've got at least a major difference in our kde's spec For example not all the %define are localized at the top of the spec,especially thoses for macro & libname : it's easier for me to have some of them in the same part.Maybe it's due to our will massive libification, but having more then 15 %define for macro & libname without knowing which package is affected. Also maybe others can find useful to have the %files list for every package listed under their description (instead of having all of them after the %prep,%build etc part ) Regards, -- Balcaen John Jabber-Id: [email protected]
