On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Anas Nashif <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2010-07-09, at 3:59 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> So, chances are that if you write a clean spec file that compiles with >>> Fedora guidelines, it will comply with openSUSE guidelines too. If >>> not, then maybe it would require a bit of tweaking in order to make it >>> distro-agnostic and compatible with both. >>> >>> But MeeGo guidelines are completely different, and it's *impossible* >>> to write a spec file (if such things are accepted on MeeGo) that >>> complies with Fedora guidelines. >> >> Long discussion, but I am still not sure exactly is "completely" different. >> Can you elaborate please? > > 1) spectacle YAML files are *required* > 2) .changes instead of %changelog > > Now, I've heard conflicting stories from you for 1). On one hand you > say that it's not mandatory, but recommended for simple packaged. On > another hand you say it's used by the "build tooling". > > If you accept that spectacle YAML files are completely optional, > regardless of the complexity, and will *remain* that way. Then I think > that's fine. > > It would still be nice to know what did you mean by this: > http://lists.meego.com/pipermail/meego-packaging/2010-July/000411.html > > Are you planing to make spectacle files mandatory? > >>>>> But on MeeGo it would be rejected. >>>> >>>> if it does not comply, then it is rejected, what is the problem with that? >>> >>> If a clean distro-agnostic spec file doesn't comply with MeeGo >>> guidelines, then the MeeGo guidelines have a design bug. Fix the bug >>> and it will comply, and it will be accepted; problem solved. >> >> Ok, can you please file a bug? > > Where? > >>>> If your package does not use that, then you do not need to worry about it. >>>> We also clarified 1 week ago and on the wiki that it is NOT mandatory for >>>> all packages, it is however recommended for packages that are generic >>>> enough to be converted. >>> >>> All right, but if my package is generic enough to be converted, but I >>> *choose* *not* to, then that's fine; no spectacle YAML stuff needed >>> from my package? You made it sound like the "build tooling" needed the >>> spectacle file. >> >> We have a few packages in meego that are made to build for every distro out >> there, like banshee and the mono packages used on netbook. > > Build yes, but not comply with the guidelines. >
Where are these guidelines that all other distros comply with and Meego is deliberately not complying with? I've always known distro-agnostic rpms to mean using the least-common-denominator between suse and redhat (which is also why very few people bother with it - you loose distro specific benefits to make yourself distro agnostic). And all of the incompatibilities I've seen stated here have been justified, so they aren't there for the explicit purpose of creating incompatibilities as the subject line in this thread implies. It seems to me that there this is just about a disagreement over the priority of having meego specific portions to the guidelines versus forcing meego to the least-common-denominator of spec file creation. None of the other distros in the past have stopped evolving their own rpm usage for the sake of being cross-distro compatible (or not breaking what little compatibility there is). > Besides, you didn't answer my question. Will spectacle files remain > completely optional? > > -- > Felipe Contreras > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev > _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
