On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Christian Daudt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Which is precisely what the argument was about; that MeeGo's spec files despite *building* on multiple distributions, but didn't comply with the guidelines of those distributions. Anyway, here's one openSUSE guy saying that %changelog is fine: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2009-10/msg00116.html >>> 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. Yes, but Anas Nashif keeps rejecting my packages because of it: http://lists.meego.com/pipermail/meego-commits/2010-July/000948.html > 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" Why should I change it, if OBS is changing it *already*? >> 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. No, MeeGo's .changes file is different from openSUSE's .changes file. And again, openSUSE seems to be ok with %changelog: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2009-10/msg00116.html > 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. Didn't you read what I said? The conversion tools are *already* there in OBS, and *already* being used by MeeGo. OBS is perfectly fine with Fedora-like spec files. MeeGo guidelines just need to be updated. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
