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

[Arnaud Quette]

2008/12/15 Arnaud Quette <aquette.dev at gmail.com>:
> 2008/12/15 Arjen de Korte <nut+devel at de-korte.org>:
>> Citeren Stanislav Brabec <sbrabec at suse.cz>:
>>
>>>> On the other hand, I'm hearing a number of "don't do that" replies, so
>>>> instead, what should we put into the SUSE-specific portion of our
>>>> documentation to point people to your SRPMS (as Arjen suggested in
>>>> another reply)?
>>> I agree with that "don't do that" as well. It should be a task for
>>> package maintainers. As NUT is widely accepted by distributors, you will
>>> not lose you users.
>>
>> So basically, we could just remove whatever we have in packaging. I
>> could live with that.
>
> indeed.
> Stan is also true in saying that it's not only about having the
> packaging files matching the NUT version, but also the system version
> to integrate with.
>
> I'm somehow happy to announce that the "make package" target and
> branch are so withdrawn.
>
> ***************************** IMPORTANT
> NOTE**********************************************
> please however provide some content on how to install nut using your
> package specific repositories, commands and UIs. These will be
> integrated into the User Manual. At the very least, provide some
> pointer to your documentation, explaining how to install NUT.
>  *******************************************************************************************
>
> I'll leave however the system detection m4 macro in place.

I meant commiting these files to the trunk

> it may serve in the future, for trimming the doc for the distro or
> whatever user case we may think about (I've you have some on your
> side, I'm interested in.
>
>> I'm not too much in favor of directing people to SRPM/websites in the
>> sources. This is something that is much too volatile so I think we'd
>> better keep this on the website (and make sure we update them
>> regularly). What we distribute should be static and preferably depend
>> as little on stuff not directly under the control of the developers.
>
> you mean a bare minimum generic-rpm?
>
> -- Arnaud (still over jet lagged)
>

-- Arnaud