On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 17:30:58 +0200 Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com wrote:
Just wanted to ping here about one packaging helper [1], which is stuck in some (possibly infinite/priority) queue without any review.
In database packages we have that multilib hack for a very long time, mostly C&P'ed among various spec files. Having this in redhat-rpm-config could make that more solid, maintained at one place.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286193 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks
It is probably possible to package this separately, so I'm ready to have a special package for database purposes. But who knows, maybe it is a time to drop that idea at all?
more automation or simplification helps the maintainers, so I'm +1 here
Can we get FPC opinion on this?
Dan
"DH" == Dan Horák dan@danny.cz writes:
DH> Can we get FPC opinion on this?
A summary would be useful, I think.
I believe the proposal is to add to redhat-rpm-config a script which generates non-conflicting C headers, and a macro for calling that script. I see no problem with this at all if it's generally useful. However, the patch presented in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1099680&action=diff isn't the best way to do it.
Make a separate package which provides the macro file and script. Show us (either in an FPC ticket or just a reply in this thread) how this saves some packager time. I'll then add a dependency on that package to redhat-rpm-config.
- J<
Also, if there is any point in having a packaging guideline for this, please submit a draft to FPC. I think I'd want to see how often it actually helps to have a standardized/mandated way of doing this before we go that far, though. (It's not particularly difficult to make that argument but someone would need to do a few minutes of work.)
- J<
Thanks to Vit for the link, I'd like to see the discussion in: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312
"PR" == Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com writes:
PR> Thanks to Vit for the link, I'd like to see the discussion in: PR> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312
Why would you bump a three year old ticket for this? Just open a new one.
- J<
On Thursday, June 9, 2016 11:28:05 AM CEST Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"PR" == Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com writes:
PR> Thanks to Vit for the link, I'd like to see the discussion in: PR> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312
Why would you bump a three year old ticket for this?
Jason, because that's what you suggested while you were previously closing the ticket, and also because the ticket covered it all. Original purpose of the ticket was to hear FPC's opinion about this.
Just open a new one.
Having a new ticket just to hear opinions would just make me to copy basically everything (anybody would still have to look at the older one). So I stop here.
The new ticket, to me, should be about MultilibTricks draft ratification, but we are obviously not there yet.
As we talk about "draft only" stuff and there is no clear vote against that change (from FPC), I'll simply try to edit the draft once the 'multilib-rpm-config' package [1] gets reviewed. I can then submit FPC ticket (and edit [2] accordingly) asking for adding 'Requires: multilib-rpm-config' into 'redhat-rpm-config'. Merging whole thing afterwards into 'redhat-rpm-config' would just be trivial playing with Provides/Requires.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286193
Thanks, Pavel
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dan Horák -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Pavel Raiskup