This mail was very badly formatted; all the reply levels are gone. On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Anas Nashif <[email protected]> wrote: > http://wiki.meego.com/Packaging/Guidelines#Writing_a_package_from_scratch > a few lines in the paragraph it reads: > "It is NOT mandatory to use spectacle for ALL packages"
That can be interpreted as: It is mandatory only for SOME packages; the ones that are simple. s/for ALL packages// And we're fine. > 2) .changes instead of %changelog > > First, opensuse uses that, so we are not "entirely" different. Awesome; there's more divergence in RPM-based distros than I though. I thought openSUSE could use the .changes, but didn't mind the %changelog. However, the format of OpenSUSE's .changes is different than MeeGo's, right? > Second, the end result is a spec file in source rpm that has the contents of > <package>.changes. (This way of packaging changes comes historically from > the days when suse was based on slackware.) > The build service looks for this file during build and adds the %changelog > entry at the bottom of the spec file. > So, end result is a spec file with %changelog. > We adopted this, it is built-in in the build system and we are not doing > anything out of the ordinary. It just works as expected. > We are not really interested in changelog entries from the upstream, we just > care for whatever is in meego, since day 0 of a package is in meego and not > when an upstream developer created that spec. Now, since we had some spec > files from other distros initially, you will notice many packages that still > carry the original authors log entries, our goal to eliminate this and have > MeeGo package all be original meego. It sounds very fancy if you put it that way, here's another way to put it: the link to upstream's spec file is broken since day 0. However, it's clear now to me that since this is a mistake done by openSUSE rather than MeeGo, we are far beyond redemption. The chain has been broken long ago. > We do not have any requirements to make our specs build on anything but > meego, however we make every attempt to not deviate from common practices > and at aleast make it easy. One nice example is using pkgconfig and reducing > the amount of explicit dependencies (those that are determined by rpm during > build time automatically). Yes, that's nice. But since you are generating a %changelog anyway, wouldn't it be sensible to allow a %changelog in the source spec? You could even have a script that converts from %changelog to .changes; all you need is a stricter format of %changelog entries. But wait a second, there's already a tool for that: changelog2spec, and guess what, OBS is already using it. You say you make "every attempt to not deviate", so what do you need to not deviate from the standard %changelog section? Nothing, the infrastructure is there, all you have to do is say "we allow it". Here's what openSUSE guys say about their genius .changes idea: --- > What about calling it spec2changelog and including it in the build > package? changelog2spec is already there and also requires > perl-TimeDate already. Argh, it's the same story over and over again. Why don't we drop the .changes file in favour of using %changelog in spec? --- http://old.nabble.com/Convert-existing-changelog-from-.spec-file-to-.changes-file-td26030622.html OBS is also perfectly fine with the %{dist} tag as it's automatically dropped: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I have the following modifications for dsp-tools.spec: 3c3 < Release: 1%{?dist} --- > Release: 3.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- > bugs.meego.com I figured that much, but which component. > What guidelines? The guidelines of the packages you are compiling to (e.g. Fedora). Without %changelog, there's no compliance. > See above. You are not forced to submit a package in spectacle format, > someone however might pick it up and do that if it makes sense. At some > point we have converted over 300 packages in one shot using scripts, because > it is really easy :) Right, if somebody automatically converts one of my spec files to spectacle, fine, but the second somebody complains that the spectacle file is not in sync with the spec file, I'll delete it. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
