[Fedora-packaging] Re: Putting the new GConf Schema Guidelines into effect

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On 06/12/2009 01:49 PM, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> The new GConf Schema Guidelines (
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GConf_Scriptlets_%28draft%29 ) 
> 
> It would be easier to define an additional macro
> 
> | %gconf_requires \
> | Requires(pre):        GConf2	\
> | Requires(preun):	GConf2	\
> | Requires(post):	GConf2	\
> | %nil
> 
<nod>  So, is this where we want to go with Scriptlets and macros in the
future?  Currently the Guidlines specify explicit Requires.  However, as
long as we're macroizing scriptlets, we could macroize the Requires as
well.  However, this makes people more reliant on the specific recipes
in the Guidelines without understanding what's going on and how they can
either change them to suit a slightly strange package or adapt them to
work for a new type of script.  For an imperative construct like the
scriptlet, there's a complicated, bit of shell being abstracted behind
the macro,  copy and paste errors there could be hard to detect.  The
Requires are more standard which makes them harder to get wrong and
easier to see what's wrong on visual inspection.

OTOH, if the macros change in the future, for instance Requiring: GConf3
to run, then abstracting the Requires: can save a bit of spec updating
there.  Although the BuildRequire that pulls in the macro would still
need to be updated, so we're not saving that in all situations.

Possibly a tangent: The scripts that this was adapted from had a
%gconf_requires type macro.  However, it was wrong.  It added scriptlets
for %post, %preun, etc like we do but only had Prereq: GConf2.  Not sure
if peer review would have caught that had it not been hidden behind a
truly superfluous macro or if more cut and paste errors would have resulted.

> 
> which is used like
> 
> | BuildRequires:  <package-which-provides-your-macros>
> | %{?gconf_requires}
> 
> in your .spec file.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> To handle the macros file I think we should add them to redhat-rpm-config.
>> Jon, is that fine with you?
> 
> A separate package (perhaps GConf2-devel?) would be better.
> 

Why would it be better?  Note, that I'm not persuaded one way or the
other.  I just want to assemble what the pros and cons are.  The only
con I can see is that you have to BuildRequire: GConf2-devel for this to
work.

Also is there a benefit to using GConf2-devel instead of GConf2?  For
scripting languages, GConf2-devel will pull in C development packages
that aren't otherwise needed.  Which seems to be a con for using
GConf2-devel instead of GConf2.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090612/940cfd4b/attachment.sig>