Re: RPM spec style

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 12:13 PM Adam Williamson

wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 09:33 -0500, Merlin Mathesius wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > I'd like a quick opinion on spec file style...
> >
> > Nearly all specs I've seen dealing with subpackages group all the
> > %package/%description stanzas near the beginning, and put all the %files
> > stanzas near the the end. (Example 1 below)
> >
> > However, are there any reasons, stylistic or otherwise, that the %files
> > stanzas shouldn't be grouped with their corresponding
> > %package/%description stanzas? (Example 2 below) Especially when there
> > are a large number of subpackages...

> I've seen a few packages that do it that way. I don't think there's any
> technical or policy reason not to. It's just a stylistic/practical
> choice.

The only technical reason to group them all together is if you're making a
macro to evaluate to multiple subpackages. It's way simpler that way.
Otherwise, it's a style choice.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RPM spec style

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 09:33 -0500, Merlin Mathesius wrote:
> Greetings.
> 
> I'd like a quick opinion on spec file style...
> 
> Nearly all specs I've seen dealing with subpackages group all the
> %package/%description stanzas near the beginning, and put all the %files
> stanzas near the the end. (Example 1 below)
> 
> However, are there any reasons, stylistic or otherwise, that the %files
> stanzas shouldn't be grouped with their corresponding
> %package/%description stanzas? (Example 2 below) Especially when there
> are a large number of subpackages...

I've seen a few packages that do it that way. I don't think there's any
technical or policy reason not to. It's just a stylistic/practical
choice.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RPM spec style

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le 2018-05-11 16:33, Merlin Mathesius a écrit :

Greetings.

I'd like a quick opinion on spec file style...

Nearly all specs I've seen dealing with subpackages group all the
%package/%description stanzas near the beginning, and put all the 
%files

stanzas near the the end. (Example 1 below)

However, are there any reasons, stylistic or otherwise, that the %files
stanzas shouldn't be grouped with their corresponding
%package/%description stanzas? (Example 2 below) Especially when there
are a large number of subpackages...


It's a lot easier to reventilate files between subpackages when a new 
version changes layout, if all the files sections are next to one 
another. Same for the descriptions. Hunting down description snippets do 
reflect one function was moved to or from another subpackage, is not 
fun.


--
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RPM spec style

[Fernando Nasser]

On 2018-05-11 10:33 AM, Merlin Mathesius wrote:

Greetings.

I'd like a quick opinion on spec file style...

Nearly all specs I've seen dealing with subpackages group all the
%package/%description stanzas near the beginning, and put all the %files
stanzas near the the end. (Example 1 below)

However, are there any reasons, stylistic or otherwise, that the %files
stanzas shouldn't be grouped with their corresponding
%package/%description stanzas? (Example 2 below) Especially when there
are a large number of subpackages...


If you think of it, the usual order of spec file sections reflects the 
timing where they are used.


So you have the tags at the top, which are used to set things up, then 
preparation, building, installation and the list of files which is used 
firstly to verify if what was produced matches what you expect.


Granted, scriptlets like %pre %post etc. are grouped together so a 
general vision of hooks is given.


You could say the same about packages and their Descriptions being 
together.  It gives a whole vision of what this SRPM will produce.




Regards,
Fernando





Thanks.

Regards,

Merlin



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

RPM spec style

[Merlin Mathesius]

Greetings.

I'd like a quick opinion on spec file style...

Nearly all specs I've seen dealing with subpackages group all the
%package/%description stanzas near the beginning, and put all the %files
stanzas near the the end. (Example 1 below)

However, are there any reasons, stylistic or otherwise, that the %files
stanzas shouldn't be grouped with their corresponding
%package/%description stanzas? (Example 2 below) Especially when there
are a large number of subpackages...

Thanks.

Regards,

Merlin


Example 1:

... preable ...

%description

%package server
%description server

%package client
%description client

%package lib
%description lib

%prep

%build

%install

%files

%files server

%files client

%files lib

%changelog
...


Example 2:

... preable ...

%description
%files

%package server
%description server
%files server

%package client
%description client
%files client

%package lib
%description lib
%files lib

%prep

%build

%install

%changelog
...

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org