> I may not have made it clear - the Fedora spec in the tarball (loaded > from the .src.rpm) was clearly NOT derived from the sawfish.spec.in > in the tarball.
Actually it's vice versa - I didn't copy those ChangeLog-changes etc. to sawfish repo while updating Fedora's spec. Those are not that important and I'm lazy... > >> +/bin/sh autogen.sh --nocfg > > > > As far as I remember, autogen was only needed for snapshots. > > True - there appears to be some tweaking of the snapshot on its way > to the release, generating configure and a Makefile, and NEWS below. Yes, and that is the problem here. Spec file should not re-generate files unless really needed. What I meant in my previous message was that Fedora's spec is for release-tarballs only and therefore it doesn't run autogen to re-generate configure etc. Regenerating stuff in configure / Makefile is normal. > > 1) There should be some kind of test is autogen is needed or not. > > Sounds good, but how? I'm a mere dabbler in rpmbuild specs. Normal shell commands are OK, so something like: [ ! -f configure ] || ./autogen.sh --nocfg > > 2) Don't update NEWS. > > NEWS already exists as the .texi, why shouldn't it pass to the > install? The release tarball includes it, and it in fact includes > instructions on how to generate it from the .texi :-) Don't re-generate stuff in spec... Again something: [ ! -f NEWS ] || /usr/bin/makeinfo --no-validate --no-headers man/news.texi > NEWS > >> +* Tue Apr 22 2014 Allan Duncan > > This line is missing version number. > > I thought about that and decided that it is up to the maintainer to > bump the version if it is > warranted, so the version number is unchanged from below. Should I > have included a repeat? Yes, you must repeat the current version. -- Sawfish ML
