On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 03:06, Miroslav Suchý <msu...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Dne 12. 11. 20 v 21:22 Adam Williamson napsal(a): > > If you're going to have this kind of "upstream" spec file...well, I > > wish you wouldn't. But if you do, *AT MINIMUM*, the "downstream" spec > > files need to have a clear explanation that there is an "upstream" spec > > file, with a justification as to why, and a link to it. At the very > > top. Otherwise there is no chance any other Fedora packager is going to > > find it. > > This is actually a good idea. I have lots of such spec files. > > Is it a good idea to document this in Packaging Guidelines?
It is already in the guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_maintenance_and_canonicity > Something like: > > If upstream provides SPEC files and your SPEC is a copy you should put on > top of SPEC > file: > # This SPEC file is a copy from upstream http://www.upstream.org/foo.spec > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
