On Wed, Mar 06, 2002, Michael Schloh von Bennewitz wrote:
> Thanks alot, Ralf. I like your version better, and it was my intention to ask
> you about the Orebro University patch anyways. I assume that it contained the
> missing manpage that you said was 'included in vendor tarball.' I have two
> questions about spec files, though.
Yes, I meant the vendor tarball plus patch set, of course.
> 1 For sources, should we prefer ftp rather than http servers when available?
Doesn't matter IMHO. Both can be considered equal. Use the one you like
more if both are provided by the vendor.
> 2 Should we always call the package's native build and install routines rather
> than make our own?
No, the reason why I replaced the "make install" procedure with my
own "shtool install" was because the vendor install has a dependency
to rdp-serv and the building of this beast is totally broken. I could
have removed with "shtool subst" the dependency in the Makefile, but
it is not worth the effort to add a complicated substitution to gain
just a trivial "make install" procedure which I was able to replace
with two "shtool install" commands.
So this is not about "prefer own procedure over vendor procedure"! The
rule is to always prefer the vendor procedure, except if it is broken.
In this case, if it the replacement procedure is smaller and easier than
the fixing procedure, I prefer the replacement procedure. But it depends
on the complexity. If the vendor does lots of tricky things, you usually
will try hard to fix it instead of having to emulate all those tricky
things, too.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
