On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Felipe Contreras
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Christian Daudt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Where are these guidelines that all other distros comply with and
>> Meego is deliberately not complying with?
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
>
That is a fedora guideline. Can you point to where SuSE (or any other
distro) agree to abide by those guidelines?
> %changelog is needed.
>
> Although I just noticed that openSUSE doesn't allow %changelog either
> (probably).
>
>> 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).
>
> True, but see these examples:
>
> Release: 1%{?dist}
>
> That's perfectly fine on Fedora, and openSUSE, but not on MeeGo.
>
> OBS replaces the Release field anyway:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> I have the following modifications for dsp-tools.spec:
> 3c3
> < Release: 1%{?dist}
> ---
>> Release: 3.1
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So whatever the spec file has in the Release field should be
> irrelevant. But no, packages are rejected if you add a %{dist} tag.
>
> So how is being cross-distro compatible hurting MeeGo's evolution in this
> case?
>
I just read the Meego packaging guidelines and is says that there is
no need for the %{dist} macro, not that it is prohibited.
If it turns out that it is prohibited due to whatever reasons, then
running your spec through this script before submitting to meego
solves the problem:
sed -e "s/^Release:.*{dist}$//g"
> Also, changelog2spec is used by OBS to convert a %changelog section
> into a .changes file. So why are packages being rejected if they have
> %changelog instead of .changes, event thought the .changes file would
> be *exactly* the same that changelog2spec generates?
>
> What are these elevated features being lost?
>
Meego seems to be following what openSUSE is already doing, so that's
1/2 of the rpm world (or some other big percentage - they are not
starting it though). Your preference seems to be the Fedora flavour. I
haven't tried this one, but It sounds like this is a one-liner script
to convert from one to another.
Given that a bit of scripting will make this go away, and that these
OBS tools are in git for all to see and contribute, maybe a better
approach is to provide patches that tweak meego's handling of spec
files to auto-convert a Fedora styled one into a meego styled one,
which will allow for meego to accept meego (+opensuse which if I
understand is what meego is basing itself on) and fedora spec files,
making this issue moot. OBS has per-package attributes that you can
set. Perhaps a "OBS:spec-style" set to "fedora" attribute can be used
to trigger on the fedora-to-opensuse/meego munging. With that in
place, you don't even need to stop at just these 2 incompatibilities,
and all make-compatible-by-script incompatibilities can be resolved
(and the ones that can't can trigger build failures).
> --
> 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
