Update of the fish package

[Jesse Keating]

On Tuesday 01 August 2006 07:43, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> I don't understand the point. As an upstream developper of CGAL¹, for
> example, I would prefere that the spec file for Fedora is the same as the
> one we use internally to generate development snapshots. Yes the resulting
> spec file is quite an advanced one, because of that. But if I can prove
> that I have written it, and can maintain it, what is the problem, from the
> FE point of view? The resulting RPMs are not bloated because of the
> complexity of the src.rpm file.

Because when a security flaw comes around and you're not there to fix it, 
somebody else has to be able to understand your spec and be able to massage a 
patch into it.

Ditto for a forced rebuild, or for any number of things.  This is a community 
project, you have to think in terms of somebody else being able to maintain 
your spec file, so you'll want to make it as easy as possible for somebody to 
do this, and that means clean as possible specs and as less complicated as 
possible.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060801/554fe817/attachment.sig>