Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Jeremy White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't recall a discussion in which putting the spec file building
> > stuff in CVS was rejected. I think it's a great idea to have it in CVS.
> > Did I miss something? I suppose Alexandre is the real authority,
> > because he's the one who'll bounce any patch sent in... Alexandre?
>
I do recall the discussion, and I vaguely remember the following reason
coming up earlier:
>
> I don't think this belongs in CVS, mainly because there is no way to
> have one authoritative spec file; every distribution needs a different
> one. So I think it's much better to place the common stuff in a
> separate script (like wineinstall), have a good documentation
> explaining the various issues (like packaging.sgml), and leave it up
> to the package developer to figure out the platform-specific details.
>
I feel that a .spec should be included that is not distribution specific, or
at least as much as possible. It would at the very least provide a starting
point for a distribution. And actually, if done correctly the spec really
shouldn't be distribution (or even OS) specific. Good rpm packages use
macros for directories like /usr and /etc and will install files into the
correct location for the particular OS/distribution. One of the design goals
of RPM is to make it portable and usable on other unices.
At the very least I would suggest putting the spec in unaltered form
somewhere into the documentation directory. Being able to actually see the
code in the sample spec file as you look at the packaging.sgml documentation
would be a good thing IMHO.
By the same token I feel that debian packaging should be in the source as
well, also as part of the documentation. Often times actually seeing the
code is better documentation than reading a description of it, especially
considering that there are some people who use and develop Wine and other
Linux programs who do not have a firm grasp of the English language. Source
code is somewhat like an algebraic expression in that it is generally
understood around the world and trancends most language barriers (with the
exception that code generally uses lots of English words, but not in the way
English uses them).
For those of you who are not familiar with the RPM specfile syntax, it is
basically a collection of shell scripts and thus shows in a clear way the
commands used to do the build process. It is my understanding that debians
system is similar and would also provide clear documentation about the wine
build process.
The only problem I see with my argument is that we might piss off people with
other OSes/package-managers if we don't also include their packages.
Therefore technically we shouldn't have favoritism and include a .spec and
debian stuff. However, since most wine users are using Linux with either
RPM or DEB and most of the current wine packages are of very low quality,
I feel providing good documentation on this subject is an absolute must.
Good documentation IMHO includes the RPM specfile and debian files.
Finally, this is a threat <JOKING BIG TIME>: If you don't let us put the
.spec into the documentation directory, we can and will convert it to docbook
maybe with some fancy coloring and some additonal comments and put it in the
documentation anyway! I can't see this making the situation better, but if
that's the way it's gotta be, then that's the way it's gonna be. Of course
you could reject that too, but you are sending a very negative message to
people trying to document wine's build and install process.
-Dave
