[Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-protocol 0/5] SPEC integration

[Frediano Ziglio]

> 
> On 10/14/19 10:18 AM, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:56:24AM +0100, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >>> This series is part from a former series.
> >>> There's an initial import commit to better understand the changes.
> >>> It contains some work from Eduardo for MingW packaging.
> >>> Final patches are really minor.
> >>
> >> Should I/we wait for Eduardo's review?
> >>
> > 
> > No idea what to suggest here. But surely I'd like some comments from
> > him. Part of the implementation came from his job.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I missed this thread completely.
> 
> The thing that may be important to think about having a spec file in the
> upstream source code is that we need to be open to contributions from
> other distros as well.
> 

Nothing wrong about. I have some SPEC file in other projects which are
multi-distro. Usually there's no much changes between one distro or
another, also considering that one of the big difference are paths
and paths are changes using macros like %configure, already used in
this SPEC. Usually the differences are in packages names but these can
be fixed in most cases using file names instead of package names or
require strings (like "pkgconfig(glib2)" or similar).

> > 
> >>> Frediano Ziglio (5):
> >>>    build-sys: Import spec file from Fedora
> >>>    build-sys: Provide spec file during build
> >>>    build-sys: Allows spec file to build MingW packages
> >>>    build-sys: Update URL in SPEC file
> >>>    build-sys: Requires proper pkg-config for MingW
> >>>
> >>>   Makefile.am            |   1 +
> >>>   configure.ac           |   1 +
> >>>   spice-protocol.spec.in | 224 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> Let's add to meson too?
> >>
> > 
> > I didn't though about. All SPEC files I started with are using autoconf
> > and I never tested distribution with Meson (I did instead with spice-gtk).
> > But it seems a bit of a follow up at the moment, it would require some
> > additional scripts to make Meson distribute processed files and other
> > changes.
> > Not considering that if the SPEC at the end is using autoconf a Meson
> > build would have to add generated "configure" and other relative files
> > which is a bit odd and complex.
> > 
> 
> Why not taking this opportunity and dropping the autotools support in
> favor of meson, at least for protocol? Spice-gtk already did it, and it
> is much more complex than this one.
> 

More than the opportunity to me it seems adding pression and stopovers.
The initial SPEC file was imported from Fedora for this reason, to
avoid possibly breaking everything and do things step by step.

When we removed autoconf from spice-gtk we already tested in different
configurations both the distribution and packaging, for spice-protocol
we didn't do anything of this, the current packaging is still
autoconf based for instance.

> --
> Eduardo de Barros Lima (Etrunko)
> Software Engineer - Red Hat
> etrunko at redhat.com
>