[Nut-upsdev] RPM .spec files in NUT source tree

[Stanislav Brabec]

Charles Lepple wrote:

> Since we do not have many developers who use the *.spec files
> (although Arjen keeps the openSUSE directory up-to-date), I am not
> sure if we are doing the packagers a disservice by shipping old
> package descriptions.

If you are interested, it is possible to create a repository in the
openSUSE Build Service and create an "upstream package playground"
there. You can play with the latest openSUSE/Redhat/Debian spec/deb
files there.

> Also, by having several different spec files in the release tarball,
> we are probably breaking "rpmbuild -tb" (if memory serves, this is the
> option that finds the .spec file inside a release tarball).
> 
> My question to the packagers: Would you prefer that we include a
> README file with a link to your website where you keep information
> about your NUT packages? Or is it worthwhile for us to pull in your
> changes every so often, so that people who want to test new drivers
> can do so before you release a new version of NUT?

I am OK with removing the spec file (and optionally even distro-specific
init scripts).

Having vendor specific spec files is not sufficient - integration and
packaging conventions change over the time. Things working in
openSUSE10/SLES10 work differently in openSUSE11/SLES11
(e. g. desktop neutral notification, hibernation).

Distro maintainers often have to prepare and test migration scripts for
upgrade from old to new version. Testing of for upgrade don't include
upgrade from upstream spec file based .rpm to the openSUSE .rpm.

Integration of NUT with the rest of distro is a very complex task. SuSE
even has an openSUSE-specific document about NUT configuration details.

And for example, I am just fixing issues of NUT used in combination with
suspend-to-disc (hibernation). They are cleanly distro-specific
packaging problems. I guess upstream doesn't want to fix them.

> Also, if there is a reference for macros that we can use to unify the
> *.spec files (using conditionals based on macros defined on your
> platform), let me know, and we'll try to incorporate that into a truly
> generic nut.spec.

It makes hard to maintain for you and it does not simplify things for
packagers. Most packagers does not follow upstream spec file, but they
base upgrade on distro specific spec file from previous version.

-- 
Best Regards / S pozdravem,

Stanislav Brabec
software developer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s. r. o.                          e-mail: sbrabec at suse.cz
Lihovarská 1060/12           tel: +420 284 028 966, +49 911 740538747
190 00 Praha 9                                  fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic                                    http://www.suse.cz/