Hi,
I think that there should be some guideline, which would better describe which package should ship "macros.foo" file containing useful RPM macros for your foo language and why. Currently, there are several approaches which are inconsistent. The guideline would say:
== RPM macros ==
RPM macros, commonly stored under /etc/rpm directory in files such as macros.perl, macros.ruby, etc are generally needed (only) at buildtime, so put them in your -devel pkg
I'd vote against this, for two primary reasons:
1) The recommendation isn't correct. Sometimes it makes sense to put them in a -devel package. Sometimes it makes sense to put them in the main package (as with cmake). Sometimes it makes sense to put them in an entirely separate package (as with ghc).
2) Not everything needs to be in the guideline. Especially when (in light of the above) the guideline couldn't be any more specific than "do what makes sense" without becoming a long list of rules telling people what makes sense.
Replying to [comment:1 tibbs]:
I'd vote against this, for two primary reasons: 1) The recommendation isn't correct. Sometimes it makes sense to put them in a -devel package. Sometimes it makes sense to put them in the main package (as with cmake). Sometimes it makes sense to put them in an entirely separate package (as with ghc).
I agree with you, but IMO, it makes sense to collect the cases you mentioned and explain them to ease the decision making for packager. So it should be '''should''' guideline not '''must'''
But this is not everyday situation, that you need to package macros for your package, so there is hard to find any relevant information.
Replying to [comment:2 vondruch]:
Ok, perhaps that might be useful.
"Additional RPM macros must be stored under /etc/rpm directory, and named using the syntax 'macros.$PACKAGE' (e.g. macros.perl). Normally, these files are packaged in the -devel subpackage, since they are usually only needed for building other packages. However, in some situations, this is not always ideal and packagers are encouraged to use their best judgment when determining the proper package for these files."
(+1:6, 0:1, -1:1)
Thank you guys for polishing my draft. I like it.
Announce Text:
A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines, covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional_RPM_Macros
Metadata Update from @petersen: - Issue assigned to spot
Login to comment on this ticket.