Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-30 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "RPH" == R P Herrold writes: RPH> I was referring to: section 37 ("Scripting inside of spec files ") RPH> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scripting_inside_of_spec_files Well, OK. I mean, Lua is right there so I'm not sure why you say it would

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-30 Thread R P Herrold
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "RPH" == R P Herrold writes: > > RPH> I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** of > RPH> /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua I was referring to: section 37 ("Scripting inside of

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-29 Thread Colin Walters
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 09:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 20:49 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > > FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write > > > scriptlets in lua because RPM

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-28 Thread nicolas . mailhot
Hi Florian, One problem is that there is a "rpm lua" and a "system lua" making it hard to switch between scriplets and actual scripts. As for bashisms, I don't seen the point of struggling for a smaller shell when everything lately has been about wrapping code in fatter and fatter virtual

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-28 Thread Florian Weimer
On 10/27/2017 09:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "FW" == Florian Weimer writes: FW> It's often necessary to use Lua for scriptlets which run reliably FW> because RPM lacks delayed script execution. I guess it depends on how delayed you want them. The ordering is

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-28 Thread Florian Weimer
On 10/27/2017 10:36 PM, Colin Walters wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367585 (But currently, as linked from one of the PRs, we just override the Fedora glibc packages' use of lua, since it's unnecessary. It seems strange to me that Florian has time to reply on list

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-28 Thread Florian Weimer
On 10/28/2017 03:49 AM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 20:49 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write > > scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua > > scriptlets, whereas at least

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write > scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua > scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell > script could be hit

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: AW> FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write AW> scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua AW> scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell AW> script could

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 16:02 -0500, Mátyás Selmeci wrote: > Hi, > > For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories, > do > y'all tend to see a common location for the spec files? Like > dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My organization is trying > to > standardize on a location

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 16:36 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 03:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > FW> However, this use is controversial because some > > FW> RPM lookalikes do not implement Lua scriptlets. > > > > For Fedora that certainly isn't a concern. > >

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Colin Walters
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 03:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > FW> However, this use is controversial because some > FW> RPM lookalikes do not implement Lua scriptlets. > > For Fedora that certainly isn't a concern. For the editions that use rpm-ostree, such as Fedora Atomic Host, it is:

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes: FW> It's often necessary to use Lua for scriptlets which run reliably FW> because RPM lacks delayed script execution. I guess it depends on how delayed you want them. The ordering is certainly well defined but it's all a bit esoteric.

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "RPH" == R P Herrold writes: RPH> I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** of RPH> /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua There's no "Scripts languages" section in the packaging guidelines as far as I'm aware. Are you referring to

Re: /bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Florian Weimer
On 10/27/2017 05:31 PM, R P Herrold wrote: On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Vít Ondruch wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines interesting to re-read I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** of /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua Each should

/bin/sh and lua; was: Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread R P Herrold
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Vít Ondruch wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines interesting to re-read I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** of /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua Each should probably be present for completeness ... it

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
If you are considering to add .spec file to your upstream project, please be aware of this guideline: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Maintenance_and_Canonicity Vít Dne 26.10.2017 v 23:02 Mátyás Selmeci napsal(a): > Hi, > > For upstream projects that provide spec

common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread R P Herrold
From a survey of about 1700 .spec files in my current working collection, the overwhelmingly common place to ** install ** such is in a: %doc directory Most simply place them in the top directory, at a depth even with where a V[ersioned] tarball is unpacked by the %setup stanza.

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread Athos Ribeiro
2017-10-26 15:02 GMT-06:00 Mátyás Selmeci > For upstream projects that provide spec files in their > repositories, do y'all tend to see a common location for the spec > files? Like dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My > organization is trying to standardize on

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread Neal Gompa
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:39 PM, William Moreno wrote: > > 2017-10-26 15:02 GMT-06:00 Mátyás Selmeci : >> >> Hi, >> >> For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories, do >> y'all tend to see a common location for the

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread Fernando Nasser
On 2017-10-26 5:39 PM, William Moreno wrote: 2017-10-26 15:02 GMT-06:00 Mátyás Selmeci >: Hi, For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories, do y'all tend to see a common location for the spec files?

Re: common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread William Moreno
2017-10-26 15:02 GMT-06:00 Mátyás Selmeci : > Hi, > > For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories, do > y'all tend to see a common location for the spec files? Like > dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My organization is trying to > standardize on a

common location of spec files in upstream sources

2017-10-26 Thread Mátyás Selmeci
Hi, For upstream projects that provide spec files in their repositories, do y'all tend to see a common location for the spec files? Like dist/.spec or rpm/.spec, etc. My organization is trying to standardize on a location for the software we maintain, and it would be better to use something