Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-30 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III 
> "RPH" == R P Herrold  writes:

RPH> I was referring to: section 37 ("Scripting inside of spec files ")

RPH> 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scripting_inside_of_spec_files

Well, OK.  I mean, Lua is right there so I'm not sure why you say it
would need to be added, and I don't see why bash would be there since by
default the scriptlets are all already in bash.  The intent of that
guideline is to cover the case where you need to call some other program
to, say, parse some data out of a file or make a substitution in %build,
%prep or %install.  It (explicitly) doesn't cover %post of the like at
all, so it's purely an rpmbuild thing.

The idea is that we would really rather people not go calling tcl or
whatever in their scriptlets and thus moving tcl into the list of things
you need to build in order to build other things.

That said, the guideline is rather old and might not really reflect
current attitudes.  My understanding of current attitudes is that, say,
gawk and sed would be preferred to Perl (so #2 and #3 on that list would
be switched).  But I could certainly be wrong.

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-30 Thread R P Herrold 
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

> > "RPH" == R P Herrold  writes:
> 
> RPH> I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** of
> RPH> /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua

I was referring to: section 37 ("Scripting inside of spec 
files ")

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scripting_inside_of_spec_files

-- Russ herrold
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-29 Thread Colin Walters 


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 09:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 20:49 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson  said:
> > > FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
> > > scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
> > > scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell
> > > script could be hit before /bin/sh is installed and thus fail to
> > > run...
> > 
> > I don't think that's true - I think an RPM with a /bin/sh scriptlet will
> > get a dependency on /bin/sh, so it shouldn't be installed before
> > /bin/sh.
> 
> Doesn't help for %pretrans, even if true.

%pretrans was covered in the thread; direct link:
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/2016-August/000396.html

So we could patch RPM to not execute them on initial install, but eh,
I don't care enough - rpm-ostree already ignores them, doesn't hurt
anything if they stay in lua.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-28 Thread nicolas . mailhot 
Hi Florian,

One problem is that there is a "rpm lua" and a "system lua" making it hard to 
switch between scriplets and actual scripts.

As for bashisms, I don't seen the point of struggling for a smaller shell when 
everything lately has been about wrapping code in fatter and fatter virtual 
delivery enveloppes.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-28 Thread Florian Weimer 

On 10/27/2017 09:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

"FW" == Florian Weimer  writes:


FW> It's often necessary to use Lua for scriptlets which run reliably
FW> because RPM lacks delayed script execution.

I guess it depends on how delayed you want them.  The ordering is
certainly well defined but it's all a bit esoteric.


I don't think the point where the cycle is broken is well-defined. 
Doesn't it depend on the transaction contents?



But sure, Lua is there and it works.  Unfortunately it lacks usability
because it really needs a standard library and more state needs to be
visible in the Lua symbol table.


The posix module that RPM provides internally is quite useful.  The 
problem is that it's not luaposix, so it can be confusing initially.



FW> Furthermore, changes in this area (such as replacing Lua with other
FW> mechanisms such as shell scripts) are difficult to test properly
FW> because differences in RPM or the repository contents could cause
FW> dependency loops be broken at different points.

Well, yes, low level distribution work is hard and the environment as
you are doing an initial OS install is, at least in the early part of
the process, extremely limited.


Installs are the easy part.  Upgrades are much harder because there are 
so many more moving parts.


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-28 Thread Florian Weimer 

On 10/27/2017 10:36 PM, Colin Walters wrote:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367585


(But currently, as linked from one of the PRs, we just override
  the Fedora glibc packages' use of lua, since it's unnecessary.
  It seems strange to me that Florian has time to reply on list
  here and not review the patch in the BZ...)


I don't know what to say on the BZ.  The current spec file is buggy: 
using %posttrans for this step is wrong because it means that many 
scriptlets will run with the wrong locale archive.  The proposed patch 
does not fix this issue.


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-28 Thread Florian Weimer 

On 10/28/2017 03:49 AM, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Adam Williamson  said:

FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell
script could be hit before /bin/sh is installed and thus fail to
run...


I don't think that's true - I think an RPM with a /bin/sh scriptlet will
get a dependency on /bin/sh, so it shouldn't be installed before
/bin/sh.


That's not true in general if your package is in turn a dependency of 
whatever provides /bin/sh.  That affects a dozen or so packages in 
Fedora, according to a quick check.


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 20:49 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Williamson  said:
> > FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
> > scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
> > scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell
> > script could be hit before /bin/sh is installed and thus fail to
> > run...
> 
> I don't think that's true - I think an RPM with a /bin/sh scriptlet will
> get a dependency on /bin/sh, so it shouldn't be installed before
> /bin/sh.

Doesn't help for %pretrans, even if true.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Chris Adams 
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson  said:
> FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
> scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
> scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell
> script could be hit before /bin/sh is installed and thus fail to
> run...

I don't think that's true - I think an RPM with a /bin/sh scriptlet will
get a dependency on /bin/sh, so it shouldn't be installed before
/bin/sh.

The only things that should have an issue there are things that are
dependencies _of_ the package providing /bin/sh, although there is a
circular dependency there, so I'm not sure how that works today.

$ rpm -qRf /bin/sh
...
filesystem >= 3
...

$ rpm -qR filesystem
/bin/sh
...

-- 
Chris Adams 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III 
> "AW" == Adam Williamson  writes:

AW> FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
AW> scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
AW> scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell
AW> script could be hit before /bin/sh is installed and thus fail to
AW> run...

Well, that's why you would _have_ to do it, but those situations are
pretty limited.  You could of course use it wherever you like, if you
happen to like lua, since we don't have any prohibitions against it.

Really, though, the problem is with scriptlets in general, not what
language you can write them in.  I would consider anything which
pretends to work like RPM but doesn't process lua scriptlets properly to
be broken, sure, but I do still think that we should be trying to get
rid of scriptlets as much as possible.  Certainly there should be
relatively few situations where we would need to have hand-written
(or even pasted in) scriptlets.

Also note that this is completely, absolutely separate from use of Lua
on the build-side of rpm specs.  Honestly I don't even know whether that
is what the original poster was talking about.

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Sérgio Basto 
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 16:02 -0500, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories,
> do 
> y'all tend to see a common location for the spec files? Like 
> dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My organization is trying
> to 
> standardize on a location for the software we maintain, and it would
> be 
> better to use something that many in the open source community also
> use.

May be in the root of the project because is just one file , do a
directory to have one file is not organization , for example gammu [1]
do that .


[1] https://github.com/gammu/gammu 


> Thanks,
> -Mat
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- 
Sérgio M. B.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 16:36 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 03:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> 
> > FW> However, this use is controversial because some
> > FW> RPM lookalikes do not implement Lua scriptlets.
> > 
> > For Fedora that certainly isn't a concern.
> 
> For the editions that use rpm-ostree, such as Fedora Atomic Host, it is:
> See:
> 
> http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/2016-August/000391.html
> https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/pull/763
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367585
> https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/pull/980
> 
> (But currently, as linked from one of the PRs, we just override
>  the Fedora glibc packages' use of lua, since it's unnecessary.
>  It seems strange to me that Florian has time to reply on list
>  here and not review the patch in the BZ...)

FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell
script could be hit before /bin/sh is installed and thus fail to
run...presumably this can only really happen for scripts that run
during initial system installation, of course (I don't think it's
reasonably possible to remove /bin/sh from a Fedora system once it's
there).
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Colin Walters 


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 03:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

> FW> However, this use is controversial because some
> FW> RPM lookalikes do not implement Lua scriptlets.
> 
> For Fedora that certainly isn't a concern.

For the editions that use rpm-ostree, such as Fedora Atomic Host, it is:
See:

http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/2016-August/000391.html
https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/pull/763
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367585
https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/pull/980

(But currently, as linked from one of the PRs, we just override
 the Fedora glibc packages' use of lua, since it's unnecessary.
 It seems strange to me that Florian has time to reply on list
 here and not review the patch in the BZ...)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III 
> "FW" == Florian Weimer  writes:

FW> It's often necessary to use Lua for scriptlets which run reliably
FW> because RPM lacks delayed script execution.

I guess it depends on how delayed you want them.  The ordering is
certainly well defined but it's all a bit esoteric.

But sure, Lua is there and it works.  Unfortunately it lacks usability
because it really needs a standard library and more state needs to be
visible in the Lua symbol table.

In any case, I did try to play with some basic library for interfacing
with RPM stuff from within Lua scripts (debug output, manipulating macro
values, etc.) which is actually all kind of tricky but the mechanism
provided for you to add functions into the Lua symbol table is kind of
primitive and needs at least some consensus before something starts
using it.

FW> In the RPM land, we can only use statically linked binaries or Lua
FW> in such cases.

The cases where you _have_ to do that are really quite limited.

FW> I have extensively used install-time scripting with Lua for packages
FW> in the toolchain space (glibc and tzdata in particular; not all of
FW> this is in Fedora).

So, sure, glibc is tough since immediately after that package is
installed you have no scripting.

FW> However, this use is controversial because some
FW> RPM lookalikes do not implement Lua scriptlets.

For Fedora that certainly isn't a concern.

FW> Furthermore, changes in this area (such as replacing Lua with other
FW> mechanisms such as shell scripts) are difficult to test properly
FW> because differences in RPM or the repository contents could cause
FW> dependency loops be broken at different points.

Well, yes, low level distribution work is hard and the environment as
you are doing an initial OS install is, at least in the early part of
the process, extremely limited.  But I don't recall a problem which 
didn't have a reasonable solution.  (Perhaps that depends on how you
define "reasonable" though.  Some would argue that using Lua at all
isn't reasonable.)

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III 
> "RPH" == R P Herrold  writes:

RPH> I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** of
RPH> /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua

There's no "Scripts languages" section in the packaging guidelines as
far as I'm aware.  Are you referring to the "Domain Specific Guidelines"
section at the end which lists separate guideline pages that exist?

And /bin/sh simply is bash in Fedora.

RPH> This may merit some discussion here before I edit the wiki

Well you can't edit Packaging:Guidelines (or other pages under
Packaging:), but you can file issues and submit drafts to the packaging
committee:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Florian Weimer 

On 10/27/2017 05:31 PM, R P Herrold wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Vít Ondruch wrote:


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines


interesting to re-read

I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence **
of /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua

Each should probably be present for completeness ... it may
finally provoke the lua hooks in rpm to become used, and os
useful


It's often necessary to use Lua for scriptlets which run reliably 
because RPM lacks delayed script execution.  In contrast, dpkg unpacks 
dependencies and then runs the postinst scripts, so the mere binaries 
can be assumed installed, the package just has not been configured. 
This avoids many dependency loops (but of course not all of them).  In 
the RPM land, we can only use statically linked binaries or Lua in such 
cases.


I have extensively used install-time scripting with Lua for packages in 
the toolchain space (glibc and tzdata in particular; not all of this is 
in Fedora).  However, this use is controversial because some RPM 
lookalikes do not implement Lua scriptlets.


Furthermore, changes in this area (such as replacing Lua with other 
mechanisms such as shell scripts) are difficult to test properly because 
differences in RPM or the repository contents could cause dependency 
loops be broken at different points.


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

/bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread R P Herrold 
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Vít Ondruch wrote:

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

interesting to re-read

I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** 
of /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua

Each should probably be present for completeness ... it may 
finally provoke the lua hooks in rpm to become used, and os 
useful

This may merit some discussion here before I edit the wiki

-- Russ herrold
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Vít Ondruch 
If you are considering to add .spec file to your upstream project,
please be aware of this guideline:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Maintenance_and_Canonicity


Vít



Dne 26.10.2017 v 23:02 Mátyás Selmeci napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories,
> do y'all tend to see a common location for the spec files? Like
> dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My organization is trying to
> standardize on a location for the software we maintain, and it would
> be better to use something that many in the open source community also
> use.
>
> Thanks,
> -Mat
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread R P Herrold 

From a survey of about 1700 .spec files in my current working 
collection, the overwhelmingly common place to ** install ** 
such is in a:
%doc
directory

Most simply place them in the top directory, at a depth even 
with where a V[ersioned] tarball is unpacked by the %setup 
stanza.  Then
rpmbuild -ta (package-V).tgz

can un-gzip and find it there and will build to order in 
chained automation.  I see in my local archive:
bzr/kicad/RCS/README,v:rpmbuild -ta ${PROJECT}-${YMD}.tar.gz && {

which does this.  The R[elease] value gets tacked on during 
the build process


This is most sensible (I have much automation for 
automatic VCS CO, .spec file, and then tarballgenerators, 
which substitute in various variable substitutions).  See, 
eg., 
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/dl/README

of which I was tracking VCS dalies and testing, before it 
moved into Fedora


Others use this approaches similar to this as well -- I see 
several
'%{_package}.spec.in'
files by others to that effect as well.  See, eg., 
krb5-auth-dialog and GeoIP

-- Russ herrold
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread Athos Ribeiro 
2017-10-26 15:02 GMT-06:00 Mátyás Selmeci  
> For upstream projects that provide spec files in their
> repositories, do y'all tend to see a common location for the spec
> files? Like dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My
> organization is trying to standardize on a location for the
> software we maintain, and it would be better to use something that
> many in the open source community also use.

Here are some ideas. The following projects are either strongly related
to Fedora or widely used in the project. These are just some projects I
had cloned in my personal PC for some reason, so, randomly picked:

- koji, copr-cli, FedoraReview, python-bugzilla ship spec files in the project 
root directory
- pagure and mote ship spec files under the 'files/' directory
- mock ships it as 'mock/mock.spec'
- ansible ships it as 'packaging/rpm/ansible.spec'
- gofed ships it as 'hacking/gofed.spec'
- RPM does not ship a .spec file in the rpm repository (maybe somewhere
  else?)

As mentioned here, Debian ships it under the debian directory in the
root dir because that's how their tooling searches for packaging data.
As pointed above, it seems that there are no default paths to ship the
spec file. Just let packagers know it exists. When packaging for
different distros, chances are the spec file will need changes anyway.

-- 
Athos Ribeiro

http://www.ime.usp.br/~athoscr
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread Neal Gompa 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:39 PM, William Moreno
 wrote:
>
> 2017-10-26 15:02 GMT-06:00 Mátyás Selmeci :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories, do
>> y'all tend to see a common location for the spec files? Like
>> dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My organization is trying to
>> standardize on a location for the software we maintain, and it would be
>> better to use something that many in the open source community also use.
>>
>
> Helllo I have not seem many upstream projects shiping rpm files in theirs
> sources, but I have seem  many with a /debian directory with all the debian
> packaging stuff and some others with a /PKGBUILD dwith file used for the
> Arch Linux´s AUR, since rpm is not only for Fedora I think /rpm should be a
> good place to ship the rpm file.
>
>

I've seen packaging/{debian,rpm}, packaging/, dist/, rpm/, as well as
it being a top-level file.

The projects I've worked on typically use dist/.spec.

For example: https://github.com/datto/dattobd/blob/master/dist/dattobd.spec

Projects from SUSE typically use package/.spec

For example: 
https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/blob/master/package/libsolv.spec.in

-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread Fernando Nasser 

On 2017-10-26 5:39 PM, William Moreno wrote:


2017-10-26 15:02 GMT-06:00 Mátyás Selmeci >:


Hi,

For upstream projects that provide spec files in their
repositories, do y'all tend to see a common location for the spec
files? Like dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My
organization is trying to standardize on a location for the
software we maintain, and it would be better to use something that
many in the open source community also use.


Helllo I have not seem many upstream projects shiping rpm files in 
theirs sources, but I have seem  many with a /debian directory with 
all the debian packaging stuff and some others with a /PKGBUILD dwith 
file used for the  Arch Linux´s AUR, since rpm is not only for Fedora 
I think /rpm should be a good place to ship the rpm file.


Or

rpm/SPECS

to match where rpmbuild would look for it

--Fernando






___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread William Moreno 
2017-10-26 15:02 GMT-06:00 Mátyás Selmeci :

> Hi,
>
> For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories, do
> y'all tend to see a common location for the spec files? Like
> dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My organization is trying to
> standardize on a location for the software we maintain, and it would be
> better to use something that many in the open source community also use.
>
>
Helllo I have not seem many upstream projects shiping rpm files in theirs
sources, but I have seem  many with a /debian directory with all the debian
packaging stuff and some others with a /PKGBUILD dwith file used for the
Arch Linux´s AUR, since rpm is not only for Fedora I think /rpm should be a
good place to ship the rpm file.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread Mátyás Selmeci 

Hi,

For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories, do 
y'all tend to see a common location for the spec files? Like 
dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My organization is trying to 
standardize on a location for the software we maintain, and it would be 
better to use something that many in the open source community also use.


Thanks,
-Mat
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org