FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-22-2008, 01:42 AM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Summary of the 2008-10-21 Packaging Committee meeting

Meeting minutes and full logs of the 2008-10-21 FPC meeting are
online:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021

Issues pending FESCo ratification:

* Eclipse plugin guideline modification
** Reported on-list; archive is at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-October/msg00121.html
** These tweak the guidelines to fix a few typos, clean the templates
up a bit and accommodate changes in Eclipse 3.4.

* Desktop File guideline modification
** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor
** This removes language which many interpreted as requiring most
desktop files to be installed with --vendor=fedora.

Other discussions:

* Cpack guidelines
** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CmakeCpack
** The committee was unclear as to how this applied to packaging
guidelines at all, as it seems to contain tips for upstream
developers instead of instructions for Fedora packagers.

* Tweaks to the specfile template for fonts
** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correction_(fontconfig)
** This alters the template for font packages to deal with issues
surrounding the /etc/fonts/conf.avail directory.
** FPC agreed with the proposal but had some suggestions; these will
be addressed and the issue will be raised later.

* New guideline relating to generically named packages and files.
** Tough to actually write a guideline involving the use of common
sense as applied to things like this.
** Jason will draft a proposal for consideration soon.

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-22-2008, 08:05 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Summary of the 2008-10-21 Packaging Committee meeting

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:42:35PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>
> * New guideline relating to generically named packages and files.
> ** Tough to actually write a guideline involving the use of common
> sense as applied to things like this.
> ** Jason will draft a proposal for consideration soon.

Tired to tell everytime the same, I have put an argumentation here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_common_namespace

I think that it would be better to tackle this issue cross distribution,
that is when we see a real conflict or a generic name used, talk to the
distribution list to agree on a name.

There is another issue to be considered, it is the case of existing
software already in fedora. For example ImageMagick puts in %_bindir:
animate compare composite conjure convert display identify import
montage stream, and there are also 2 letter command names, like gv.

A case which is also unclear is the case of sl. This package is a kind
of a joke, when you type sl, there is an ascii art steam locomotive
that goes through the screen. It is meant to annoy you when you wanted
to type 'ls' and you typed 'sl'. It uses a precious 2 letter command
name, however it has to in order to do its job and it could be replaced
if something serious wanted to use it, so I think it may go in fedora,
but it isn't that obvious. Review is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466997
I'd recommand not saying anything that precise and let common sense
apply, but this is an unclear case in my opinion.

A last word, I think that it is sad that we have to do a guideline here,
since upstream and packagers should understand the issue, and we already
have too many guidelines, but I also don't know how to solve it
differently, I am tired of looking at every submission and whine if it
smells like a generic name is used.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-22-2008, 03:36 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Summary of the 2008-10-21 Packaging Committee meeting

>>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> writes:

PD> Tired to tell everytime the same, I have put an argumentation
PD> here:
PD> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_common_namespace

Well, I don't recall seeing a draft guideline anywhere; if you want to
submit one, be my guest. I believe this needs to be in the actual
guidelines.

PD> I think that it would be better to tackle this issue cross
PD> distribution, that is when we see a real conflict or a generic
PD> name used, talk to the distribution list to agree on a name.

My intent was that packagers would consult FPC in the case of
questions, and that FPC could take appropriate action, including
checking what other distros do and attempting to coordinate when
possible.

PD> A last word, I think that it is sad that we have to do a guideline
PD> here, since upstream and packagers should understand the issue,
PD> and we already have too many guidelines, but I also don't know how
PD> to solve it differently, I am tired of looking at every submission
PD> and whine if it smells like a generic name is used.

These things are not always obvious to packagers, which is why we have
guidelines and reviewers. The intent is to make the guideline as
short as possible (because the alternative is to make it impossibly
huge), but I don't think we can continue without some kind of
guideline here.

And as for getting tired of this issue, I guess the only thing I can
offer is sympathy and advise that you get used to it. Many upstreams
simply will not care, because to them people who use other similarly-
or identically-named programs simply won't compile theirs. We,
however, have to consider the uniqueness of filenames across the
entire distribution, not just sets of installed packages.

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-22-2008, 03:53 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Summary of the 2008-10-21 Packaging Committee meeting

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:36:56AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> writes:
>
> PD> Tired to tell everytime the same, I have put an argumentation
> PD> here:
> PD> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_common_namespace
>
> Well, I don't recall seeing a draft guideline anywhere; if you want to
> submit one, be my guest. I believe this needs to be in the actual
> guidelines.

Actually that is also my opinion (maybe it wasn't clear...), though I am
reluctant, we have to face that too many upstream don't care.

I can help you with the guideline, but I don't have that much time
during the week, I have time on week-ends.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-04-2009, 08:38 AM
"Debarshi Ray"
 
Default Summary of the 2008-10-21 Packaging Committee meeting

> Issues pending FESCo ratification:
>
> [...]
>
> * Desktop File guideline modification
> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor
> ** This removes language which many interpreted as requiring most
> desktop files to be installed with --vendor=fedora.

What is the current status of this? Should new packages use
--vendor=fedora or not?

Cheers,
Debarshi

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-04-2009, 09:14 AM
Mamoru Tasaka
 
Default Summary of the 2008-10-21 Packaging Committee meeting

Debarshi Ray wrote, at 01/04/2009 06:38 PM +9:00:

Issues pending FESCo ratification:

[...]

* Desktop File guideline modification
** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor
** This removes language which many interpreted as requiring most
desktop files to be installed with --vendor=fedora.


What is the current status of this? Should new packages use
--vendor=fedora or not?

Cheers,
Debarshi



From:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg02273.html

=== Fedora Packaging Committee Guideline Proposals ===
* FESCo had no objections to the guideline proposals approved by the
FPC. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021

Regards,
Mamoru

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-04-2009, 09:17 AM
"Debarshi Ray"
 
Default Summary of the 2008-10-21 Packaging Committee meeting

> === Fedora Packaging Committee Guideline Proposals ===
> * FESCo had no objections to the guideline proposals approved by the
> FPC. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021

Thank you. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
needs to be updated.

Cheers,
Debarshi

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:58 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org