[Mageia-dev] Importing RPM Spec File Syntax

[Maarten Vanraes]

Op zaterdag 15 januari 2011 14:01:51 schreef John Balcaen:
> 2011/1/15 Remy CLOUARD <shikamaru at mandriva.org>:
> > Hi there,
> 
> Hello,
> 
> > I just imported the RPM Spec File Syntax page in the wiki.
> > 
> > It’s located here: http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=spec_syntax
> > 
> > Please review this page as it’s one of the most important one for the
> > beginning of the mentoring process, with the RPM Howto page (yet to be
> > imported).
> > 
> > Some comments on this page:
> > - Patch naming:
> > 
> > I’m not sure we should go that far for the patch naming policy, and in
> > practice it’s not what I’ve seen up till now.
> > 
> > Here’s a proposal:
> > Patches must be named in a very explicit manner to make it very clear to
> > what version it was originally applied. To that end, a patch needs to
> > follow the convention of
> > [package_name]-[version]-[description].patch:
> > 
> >  * [package_name] is the name of the package it applies against, such
> >  as 'shadow-utils' or 'gnupg'
> >  * [version] is the version of the program this patch was developed
> >  against, such as 1.0. The name of the patch should not change, even
> >  when it is rediffed, because the version allow to see in a blink since
> >  when this patch has been there. If you happen to see a patch that does
> >  not apply anymore, and rediff it, ask the package maintainer if it has
> >  been sent upstream, and why it hasn’t been merged, and send it
> >  upstream if you think it should be merged.
> >  * [description] is a short description of the patch's purpose.
> > 
> > Example: foo-1.0-fix-str-fmt.patch for a patch that fixes string format
> > errors
> 
> It would also be nice to add some comment inside like we're trying to do in
> our kde's packaging policy (
> http://www.mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=kde4_packaging_policy )
> aka
> #
>  # Description:
>  # Forwarded:
>  # Bug:
>  # Author:
>  #

git-svn patches have description automatically, if that format is also ok, i 
see no reason why not.

perhaps some emphasis on git-svn should be made on the wiki, relating to 
patches.

> > - Buildroot changed from the original page
> > 
> > After reviewing it again, I see that some links have to be made to the
> > corresponding pages, and an explicit license should be mentionned as
> > well.
> 
> [...]
> Regarding the spec we've got at least a major difference in our kde's spec
> For example not all the %define are localized at the top of the
> spec,especially thoses for macro & libname : it's  easier for me to have
> some of them in the same part.Maybe it's due to our will massive
> libification, but having more then 15
> %define for macro & libname without knowing  which package is affected.
> Also maybe others can find useful to have the %files list for every
> package listed
> under their description (instead of having all of them after the
> %prep,%build etc part )
> 
> Regards,

Personally, i agree regarding the %files part to be under their respective 
%description and having build stuff on the bottom part. I like that idea.

regarding defines, i don't understand completely, but i am in favor of having 
all defines up top.