[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: clamav for epel looking for reviewer



Kevin Fenzi wrote:
1) Is massive perl patches ok for Fedora packages or is it better to
generate the patch as a file and apply it directly. When I do it
myself, I prefer the second as it doesnt break my auto-buildsystem as
much as pulling in perl etc when I don't need it.

There isn't any guideline either way. I usually prefer to use patches
myself, but this spec is based on one from Dag, and he used the perl
substitutions in there, so I left it in order to keep close to his spec.
As far as I know there is no guideline prohibiting this...
It probably takes more resources in the builder to do a bunch of perl stuff then using sed which probably in turn takes more then a simple patch, but all methods are accepted and as long as it not confusing, all of them are acceptable. Just use whatever you feel comfortable with.


2) file creation from inside of the SPEC. Is it better to have them as
seperate files or use cat inside the SPEC? Again.. I prefer seperate
files.. but I can understand having it in the spec means fix once
versus remember to fix a file you forgot about.

Yeah, again it's a matter of taste. I don't think there is any
guideline about which way to do things. Also again, I perfer seperate
files, but am keeping it this way to stay close to the Dag spec.
There is no specific guideline, AFAIK.
However I too almost always prefer to have separate files because you can then use rpm for management (compare access times, avoid overwriting modified files etc) In this case I would be very much in favor of separate files, including the script for updating signatures. I do not think that compatibility with Dag's version is a big issue here.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]