Hi,
I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby, we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm package itself.
This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?
Vit
[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-July/008527.html
On 07/10/2012 12:29 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby, we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm package itself.
This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?
Perl has the macros in the main perl package rather than the perl-devel package because arch-independent perl module builds often don't need perl-devel - the packaging split is more fine-grained for perl and tends to become finer with each release as more and more bits are split out into their own subpackages since they have their own lives upstream.
Paul.
Dne 10.7.2012 13:48, Paul Howarth napsal(a):
On 07/10/2012 12:29 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby, we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm package itself.
This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?
Perl has the macros in the main perl package rather than the perl-devel package because arch-independent perl module builds often don't need perl-devel - the packaging split is more fine-grained for perl and tends to become finer with each release as more and more bits are split out into their own subpackages since they have their own lives upstream.
Thank you for your clarification. Actually, it is similar for Ruby. Arch-independent packages do not require -devel package because of build, but because of macros. And I find it more reasonable then to have /etc/rpm/macros.ruby in my runtime system, where I have no use for this file.
Vit
Paul.
packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Hi Vit,
I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages.
I think originally the macros lived in the Fedora ghc package but since ghc takes quite a long time to build and the binaries are quite large, it made good sense to move them to their own package. It also had made development simpler and cleaner, though of course packages do need to BR ghc-rpm-macros, which I think is transparent.
Jens
On 07/10/2012 07:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby, we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm package itself.
This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?
Is this inconsistency causing problems? I think it is okay for the maintainers to make a call as to which package provides the macros, based on the specific environment.
~tom
== Fedora Project
Dne 11.7.2012 15:52, Tom Callaway napsal(a):
On 07/10/2012 07:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby, we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm package itself.
This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?
Is this inconsistency causing problems? I think it is okay for the maintainers to make a call as to which package provides the macros, based on the specific environment.
I never said it causes problems (if I will ignore that I might have unnecessary RPM macros on my system, if the macros would be in the application main package for example).
I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby, there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.
Vit
~tom
== Fedora Project
On 07/12/2012 12:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby, there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.
If you want a common sense convention, it is this: generally rpm macros are needed (only) at buildtime, so put them in your -devel pkg
-- rex
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 08:07:58AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 07/12/2012 12:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby, there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.
If you want a common sense convention, it is this: generally rpm macros are needed (only) at buildtime, so put them in your -devel pkg
+1
On 07/12/2012 09:07 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 07/12/2012 12:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby, there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.
If you want a common sense convention, it is this: generally rpm macros are needed (only) at buildtime, so put them in your -devel pkg
Agreed. If you want us to codify that in the guidelines, open a ticket here: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/
~tom
== Fedora Project
Dne 12.7.2012 18:18, Tom Callaway napsal(a):
On 07/12/2012 09:07 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 07/12/2012 12:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby, there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.
If you want a common sense convention, it is this: generally rpm macros are needed (only) at buildtime, so put them in your -devel pkg
Agreed. If you want us to codify that in the guidelines, open a ticket here: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/
~tom
== Fedora Project
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/196
Thank you
Vit
On 07/10/2012 01:29 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby, we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm package itself.
This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?
Vit
[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-July/008527.html
It depends what you need to do. Part of Perl macros is in a special package perl-srpm-macros, which is required by redhat-rpm-config. We should have all macros defined in perl-srpm-macros in buildroot everytime, which was one of our issues during annual rebuild.
Marcela
It depends what you need to do. Part of Perl macros is in a special package perl-srpm-macros, which is required by redhat-rpm-config. We should have all macros defined in perl-srpm-macros in buildroot everytime, which was one of our issues during annual rebuild.
That's interesting since we also have a couple of ghc srpm arch related macros added to fedora's redhat-rpm-macros package, which then of course needed to be in a different package for EPEL...
Jens
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Darryl L. Pierce -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Marcela Mašláňová -
Paul Howarth -
Rex Dieter -
Tom Callaway -
Vít Ondruch