On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:09 PM, "Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nkadel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:45:51PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >> [ Accidentally sent this to old dev address, resending ]
> >>
> >> The attached patch is a pretty thorough rewrite of the SRPM building
> >> utilities, and spec files, for Subversion-1.7.1. It includes a number
> >> of components:
> >
> > Thanks for sending this.
> >
...
> > Would it make more sense to version your package at rpmforge?
>
> I'm trying to get it in at RPMforge, I've submitted packages
> successfully there before. The problem is that I don't personally have
> a reliable a public FTP site to post the bulky diffs in, and the
> complete rewrite of the .spec file is kind of bulky to submit via
> email, and I'm not hearing a lot back from that repository. I've
> already submitted it to Fedora. Publishing it to the dev mailing list
> gave me a good place to submit it so the RPMforge maintainers can get
> at it.
>
dev_at_svn is not a pastebin :P
> My big concern with what's in the Subversion source tree is that the
> the existing RPM building structure is dangerous. It overwrites the
> builder's $HOME/.rpmmacros file. And it leaves multiple, unusable
> ".spec" files scattered in the repository. The new structure has *one*
> file, a .spec.in file, that gets tweaked and clean SRPM built locally,
> without overwriting .rpmmacro. Building from SRPM is left as an
> exercise for the builder: I personally use "mock" in order to build
> clean RPM's without having to mess up my development enviornment, and
> to make sure that I haven't left out dependencies.
>
> As it stands, simply deleting the existing rhel-3, rhel-4, and rlel-5
> legacy building bundles and leaving a pointer to the archive patch
> would probably be enough to allow others to use it as necessary.
>
If they're broken (and I agree that overwriting dotfiles constitutes a
bug), and if no one uses them, then yes we could delete them. (Though
perhaps someone will apply your patch before then.)
Received on 2011-11-03 11:07:22 CET