On spec file formatting/indentation (was: Re: rpms/fish/devel fish.spec, 1.1, 1.2)

Oliver Falk oliver at linux-kernel.at
Fri Jul 1 18:00:52 UTC 2005


> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:15:11 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
> 
> > On 07/01/2005 04:59 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 16:21 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
> > >>And you are correct, it doesn't improve package quality, but 
> > >>specfile readability. :-)
> > > 
> > > That's subjective.  Many people find the "indented" style more 
> > > readable, while others exactly the opposite.  As long as 
> there's no 
> > > policy, it is up to the package _maintainer_ to decide, 
> and _all others_ to respect.
> > 
> > My fault, ok? Could we stop discussing a few spaces and 
> tabs, as they 
> > are whitespaces and whitespaces are 'nothing', so we are discussing 
> > 'nothing'. :-P
> > 
> > Don't get me wrong, I read and understood what you wrote! But we 
> > really shouldn't discuss it too much...
> 
> We have to. We need to refresh things like this as they come 
> up, since they are not covered by packaging 
> policies/guidelines yet (afaik). It may become necessary to 
> document a list of commonly encountered "need not fix"
> things in addition to "must fix" and "should fix" items. Some 
> of us have made experience with the package QA procedures at 
> fedora.us, where sometimes the difference between "must fix" 
> blocker criteria and hints/suggestions was either not clear 
> or non-existant, even when the infamous "QA checklist" 
> contained only around 17 items. The procedures and processes 
> at Fedora Extra are work in progress. We must ensure that the 
> "reviewing" remains doable for the majority of 
> packagers/contributors and that new contributors don't get a 
> false impression of what is required and what remains 
> packager's freedom. The notion of "minor moderating spec 
> files" has come up in the past. "Indentation" and "spec 
> template compliance" are things which can annoy a new [or 
> even long-time] contributor easier than you would assume.
> 
> It's not a big issue afterall, but it is brought up 
> regularly, which may make all the new packagers wonder at 
> which detail they need to adapt spec file formatting.

It was nothing I suggested to Axel. Yes, I did allready and I was asked not
to do it again, because it's not 'relevant'. So I don't recommend it any
more...

As Axel has no CVS account yet and I was the one who actually imported and
requested build for him, I felt free to do some identation, because it was
the reason why I didn't look for the dist macro... Some kind of pattern
matchin' algorithm in my brain get's confused if no identation is done. :-\

However, it was 'wrong' to do this and I got it, of course....... I *do*
understand, that changin' the spec without maintainers permission is wrong,
but see the above explanation (again) why I did this.

But keep in mind, if I would have changed the identation *before*
cvs-import, you would never have recognized it. :-P

However, as long as Axel has no cvs account - or better said no cvs sponsor
- I'm the one who has to/is going to maintain the packages and I thought
it's not too wrong to change some identation. Now I know that this wasn't a
very good idea and will not do it again and I guess the discussion made it's
way to the brains of others as well and that's what you actually
wanted/started this 'discussion'/briefing/introduction for - didn't you? :-)
And this is Ok from my side.

So finally, I'd like to give you three characters: ACK. :-)

Best,
 Oliver





More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list