#83 Additional possible mingw tweak
Closed: Fixed None Opened 8 years ago by tibbs.

One thing about the new mingw guidelines is that they explicitly say that the old guidelines must be followed for F15 and older. That's fine, as most of the new stuff won't actually work on old releases. However, one very important difference between the two guidelines is that they mandate a different source package name (mingw- vs. mingw32-). This causes the rather bonehead problem that we effectively mandate that every one of these packages that wants to support any release has to go in as two different packages, with two SCM requests and (by policy) two package reviews (although I'm sure we could bend the latter).

That's kind of foolish. It should be possible to fix this by revising the old guidelines to mandate (or at least permit) mingw-* as well and to change the specfile template just a bit. Is this something we want to consider?


Yes, and I +1 your suggested change.

So, fixing up the specfile template is easy; you change Name: to mingw-example, add %package -n mingw32-example, duplicate Summary and %description (the latter with -n mingw32-example) and tack on "-n mingw32-example" to %files.

I'd make these changes in a draft except that, of course, the specfile template is not actually part of the guidelines. I guess I'll go ahead and move it into the main guidelines as well and post a draft so we have something to talk about during the meeting.

A draft is at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/MinGW_Old

Changes I made:
* Removed the link to the example spec
* Added a note about naming of source packages for easy transitioning to the new guidelines
* Included a cleaned up version of the sample spec, with old stuff (buildroot, cleaning, defattr) removed and the extra bits for having the source package under a different name added.

I guess I could have gone further and illustrated using macros for the summary and descriptions so they don't have to be duplicated.

Proposed improvements to "old" guidelines approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:1)

I made a copy of Tibb's example spec file and edited it a bit to better reflect what the MinGW SIG is currently using: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AKalev%2FMinGW_old_specfile&diff=235714&oldid=235713

Are these changes subtle enough or do they need another FPC vote?

I took the spec directly from the link in the old guidelines. It's bad that we had the example spec outside of the guidelines, but I guess it's doubly bad that we were linking to something that wasn't up to date.

I think these changes are simple enough to just make them, but in case others think there should be a vote, you have my +1.

Agree with just do it. and +1 should others disagree.

Announcement text:

It was brought to the FPC's attention that while the new Guidelines covering MinGW packaging were technically correct, Fedora 16 did not yet contain the necessary toolchain to support the new Guidelines, nor was it clear that it would arrive in rawhide anytime soon.

Accordingly, the "old" MinGW guidelines were put back in place at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW

The "new" MinGW guidelines remain approved, but are not active and packagers should not use them at this time. If/when the necessary toolchain components are packaged in Fedora, these guidelines will be re-enabled.

In addition, the current MinGW guidelines were improved slightly to support the "new" SRPM naming standard. This is intended to prevent new MinGW packages from having to be re-reviewed when the "new" MinGW guidelines take effect.

Metadata Update from @spot:
- Issue assigned to spot

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata