On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <ti...@math.uh.edu>
wrote:
> >>>>> "RS" == Richard Shaw <hobbes1...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> RS> Is this retroactive on all supported versions of Fedora?
>
> Packaging guideline changes are pretty much never retroactive; we don't
> really have an enforcement body.
>
Yeah, I could have worded it better... I guess what I should have asked, is
this rawhide and up, or should F20/21 packages be updated. Also, I'm
assuming this isn't important enough to rebuild packages for, but should be
done the next time the package is built for other reasons?
>
> RS> What about EPEL 5, 6, 7?
>
> Pretty sure 7 is OK, but in any case, EPEL has its own guidelines.
> Still, here's some magic:
> %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
> Now everything supports %license. I so wish there was an
> epel-rpm-config package that could hold this kind of thing.
>
It might be a good idea to add that to the wiki since many people, like
myself, prefer to have the spec files consistent even across Fedora/EPEL.
> RS> Should some basic steps be added there? Or perhaps a link to another
> RS> wiki page?
>
> Feel free to make a more concrete suggestion and I'll be happy to make
> the change.
>
I'm certainly not a mediawiki wizard so I could provide the content if
someone would help me format it. I think capturing best practices is
*always* a good idea :)
Thanks,
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
