Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula spec file

[Jerry A. <jam...@gm...>]

On 3/28/07, Kern Sibbald <ke...@si...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 March 2007 17:00, Scott Barninger wrote:
> > Thoughts anyone?

This looks like a good time for me to chime in. I've the honor of
being assigned the Fedora review for Bacula.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344

> I don't mind if more of the paths are put on variable names rather than being
> hard coded.  However, we need to be *extremely* careful not to change any of
> our default installation locations regardless of what the "standard" is
> without careful consideration.

Agreed.

> Before changing anything, it should be clearly discussed on the list.  That is
> what the old value was, and what the proposed new value will be and why.
> Then we need to very carefully document it and choose the right moment for
> the change -- probably when releasing 2.2.0 rather than any of the 2.0.x
> releases.

That's understandable, although I'm targeting 2.0.x for Fedora
inclusion, but with a spec file independent of that packaged with the
release. And not the spec's from the download page, either, from what
I've seen.
For those curious, here's the guide I'm following...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
I use Suse at times, and refer to theirs also...
http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfcontent/private.php/library/SUSE%20Package%20Conventions/spc.pdf

jerry

-- 
"Oh joy! Rapture! I've got a brain"
-Scarecrow