RPM macros
 

Hi,

I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the
ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns
provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby,
we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel
subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm
package itself.


This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't
we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For
example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because
we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?



Vit



[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-July/008527.html
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

RPM macros
 

On 07/10/2012 12:29 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:

Hi,

I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the
ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns
provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby,
we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel
subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm
package itself.

This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't
we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For
example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because
we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?


Perl has the macros in the main perl package rather than the perl-devel
package because arch-independent perl module builds often don't need
perl-devel - the packaging split is more fine-grained for perl and tends
to become finer with each release as more and more bits are split out
into their own subpackages since they have their own lives upstream.


Paul.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

RPM macros
 

Dne 10.7.2012 13:48, Paul Howarth napsal(a):

On 07/10/2012 12:29 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:

Hi,

I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the
ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns
provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby,
we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel
subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm
package itself.

This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't
we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For
example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because
we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?


Perl has the macros in the main perl package rather than the
perl-devel package because arch-independent perl module builds often
don't need perl-devel - the packaging split is more fine-grained for
perl and tends to become finer with each release as more and more bits
are split out into their own subpackages since they have their own
lives upstream.


Thank you for your clarification. Actually, it is similar for Ruby.
Arch-independent packages do not require -devel package because of
build, but because of macros. And I find it more reasonable then to have
/etc/rpm/macros.ruby in my runtime system, where I have no use for this
file.



Vit




Paul.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging



--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

RPM macros
 

Hi Vit,

> I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned
> the ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in
> turns provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages.

I think originally the macros lived in the Fedora ghc package but
since ghc takes quite a long time to build and the binaries are
quite large, it made good sense to move them to their own package.
It also had made development simpler and cleaner, though of course
packages do need to BR ghc-rpm-macros, which I think is transparent.

Jens
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

RPM macros
 

On 07/10/2012 07:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the
> ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns
> provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby,
> we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel
> subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm
> package itself.
>
> This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't
> we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For
> example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because
> we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?

Is this inconsistency causing problems? I think it is okay for the
maintainers to make a call as to which package provides the macros,
based on the specific environment.

~tom

==
Fedora Project


--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

RPM macros
 

Dne 11.7.2012 15:52, Tom Callaway napsal(a):

On 07/10/2012 07:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:

Hi,

I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the
ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns
provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby,
we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel
subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm
package itself.

This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't
we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For
example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because
we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions?

Is this inconsistency causing problems? I think it is okay for the
maintainers to make a call as to which package provides the macros,
based on the specific environment.


I never said it causes problems (if I will ignore that I might have
unnecessary RPM macros on my system, if the macros would be in the
application main package for example).


I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to
follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby,
there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this
file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead
of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.


Vit




~tom

==
Fedora Project





--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

RPM macros
 

On 07/12/2012 12:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:


I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to
follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby,
there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this
file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead
of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.


If you want a common sense convention, it is this: generally rpm macros
are needed (only) at buildtime, so put them in your -devel pkg


-- rex

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

RPM macros
 

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 08:07:58AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 12:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> >I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to
> >follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby,
> >there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this
> >file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead
> >of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.
>
> If you want a common sense convention, it is this: generally rpm
> macros are needed (only) at buildtime, so put them in your -devel
> pkg

+1

--
Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce@gmail.com>
http://mcpierce.multiply.com/
"What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

RPM macros
 

On 07/12/2012 09:07 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 12:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>> I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to
>> follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby,
>> there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this
>> file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead
>> of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.
>
> If you want a common sense convention, it is this: generally rpm macros
> are needed (only) at buildtime, so put them in your -devel pkg

Agreed. If you want us to codify that in the guidelines, open a ticket
here: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/

~tom

==
Fedora Project


--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

RPM macros
 

Dne 12.7.2012 18:18, Tom Callaway napsal(a):

On 07/12/2012 09:07 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:

On 07/12/2012 12:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:

I am just looking for convention over configuration. It is good to
follow conventions. That's it. When I was preparing the macros.ruby,
there were no place where I could look and learn where to place this
file and why. And it seems everybody needs to invent his own way instead
of reusing the knowledge. But we can stay with this status quo.

If you want a common sense convention, it is this: generally rpm macros
are needed (only) at buildtime, so put them in your -devel pkg

Agreed. If you want us to codify that in the guidelines, open a ticket
here: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/

~tom

==
Fedora Project


--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging


https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/196

Thank you

Vit

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging