Re: Update of the fish package

["Axel Liljencrantz" <liljencrantz gmail com>]

On 8/1/06, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan underwood gmail com> wrote:
> On 01/08/06, Axel Liljencrantz <liljencrantz gmail com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the tip, that makes a lot of sense. I provide you with a
> > revised, unified monster. It is hardcoded to handle all known fedora
> > versions correctly, and in case of a non-fedora system, it falls back
> > to checking the layout of the filesystem and performing an educated
> > guess as to the correct dependencies.
> >
>
> It is my understanding that including cruft in the spec file to allow
> it to build on non fedora distributions is strongly discouraged in
> extras - the spec files in fedora extras are for fedora. So I would
> suggest removing the %if 0%{?fedora} parts.
>
> That said, I don't see any directives in the packaging guidelines
> about this - perhaps we need clarification on this matter.

As I said in one of my earlier mails, for me there is a benefit in
maintaining only one spec file instead of many. I will of course
respect fedora guidelines, but if it would be acceptable to have this
rather small amount of non-fedora cruft in the spec it would make life
a bit easier for me.

There is also a small potential for confusion if the spec file that
ships in the fish tarball is different from the one Fedora uses, not a
big deal, but a small source of possible bugs and confusion.

> Jonathan

--
Axel