[Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055


Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot at l
                   |                            |aposte.net)




--- Comment #1 from Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi>  2008-12-18 16:51:09 EDT ---
1) Looks like simply dropping it would be a regression (I am not talking about
the contents of the spec templates): "rpmdev-newspec foo-fonts" and thus e.g.
"emacs foo-fonts.spec" (for a nonexistent foo-fonts.spec) would no longer
result in any fonts spec template being used.

Suggestion: make (symlink?) one of the templates from fontpackages to simply
spectemplate-fonts.spec.  And add logic to rpmdev-newspec so that if one does
"rpmdev-newspec foo-fonts-multi" (or -single), it knows that the -multi/-simple
is not part of the package name and knows how to drop it appropriately.

2) Also, seems that what rpmdev-newspec would replace in the templates
contained in fontpackages would no longer be the right thing; at least FONTNAME
has changed to <FONTNAME> thus making the current replacing done by newspec
pretty much useless.

Suggestion: either move back to plain FONTNAME or confirm that <FONTNAME> is
the way it'll stay and I can adjust rpmdev-newspec accordingly.

3) The font spec templates in the fontpackages package use %{buildroot} syntax
instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT which means rpmdev-newspec users can not easily opt
to use shell style $RPM_... variables.

Suggestion: switch the templates to shell style $RPM_... variables (see
rpmdev-newspec source for a full list); rpmdev-newspec -m (or
NEWSPEC_PREFER_MACROS=1 in newspec's config files) will just continue to work
that way.

4) Indentation of stuff after all Foo: tags is different from every other spec
template that we have in rpmdevtools.

Suggestion: use same indentation levels and style (spaces only) as other spec
templates in rpmdevtools for consistency and so that rpmdev-init.el will
continue to do the right thing for those who prefer tabs over spaces for
indentation.

I'm about to roll a new rpmdevtools release for all active distros for which I
maintain it anyway so this would be a good time to make those changes (and e.g.
take care of the spectemplate-fonts.spec file conflict if what's suggested in
1) is implemented).  But I'd like the above regressions be addressed before the
transition.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.