On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 12:08 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> writes:
>
> TK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have
> TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not.
>
> What about a package that _only_ provides gnome help? The
> system-config-* packages have split out their documentation and I'm
> reviewing the new packages, but am stuck on this issue.
>
> TK> If yelp is not Required, then filesystem should own
> TK> /usr/share/gnome/help. If yelp is required, the filesystem
> TK> ownership will do no harm.
>
> This would imply that any package other than yelp or filesystem which
> owns /usr/share/gnome/help has a bug, I guess. More to file.

Filing more bugs does not really help improve this situation.
Fixing rpm to handle directories sensibly would.

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

>>>>> "MC" == Matthias Clasen <mclasen@redhat.com> writes:

MC> Filing more bugs does not really help improve this situation.

It's just a directory ownership change. I mean, I'd just fix them,
but then I'd expect to get flames. I guess I should expect that
regardless.

MC> Fixing rpm to handle directories sensibly would.

That is not within my power. We have guidelines written for the rpm
which currently exists.

- J<

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

Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 12:08 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> writes:
>> TK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have
>> TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not.
>>
>> What about a package that _only_ provides gnome help? The
>> system-config-* packages have split out their documentation and I'm
>> reviewing the new packages, but am stuck on this issue.
>>
>> TK> If yelp is not Required, then filesystem should own
>> TK> /usr/share/gnome/help. If yelp is required, the filesystem
>> TK> ownership will do no harm.
>>
>> This would imply that any package other than yelp or filesystem which
>> owns /usr/share/gnome/help has a bug, I guess. More to file.
>
> Filing more bugs does not really help improve this situation.

What situation precisely? The passage quoted implicates adding
/usr/share/gnome/help to the filesystem package and then changing
individual packages to not own /usr/share/gnome/help as filesystem would
then own it. That does seem like an improvement over the current situation.

I have a feeling you're thinking of something more meta, though.

> Fixing rpm to handle directories sensibly would.
>
This is probably something you need to talk to the rpm maintainers
about. They've been making lots of changes to rpm recently. If you
have a proposal, they'll be able to tell us if it's something that's
doable in the continued rpm cleanup or something that goes too deeply
into what rpm is.

-Toshio

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

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> writes:
>
> TTK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have
> TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not. I think it's a bug if a
> TK> package has a help menu that doesn't work so I lean towards
> TK> requiring it.
>
> For one reference, see
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243408 which would tend to
> indicate that yelp should not generally be a dependency of packages
> which have gnome help
>

Oops... I found the mailing list thread and there was a conclusion.
Packages should not require yelp. Instead, packages that fail silently
when yelp is not installed need a bug to print the error dialog returned
from the gnome API.

So it seems like filesystem owning /usr/share/gnome/help would be the
best so that we don't need to have every package own /usr/share/gnome/help.

-Toshio

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

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:01:09PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> Oops... I found the mailing list thread and there was a conclusion.
> Packages should not require yelp. Instead, packages that fail silently

That was not my conclusion. My conclusion was that it was up to the
packager.

This doesn't change that your conclusion holds:

> So it seems like filesystem owning /usr/share/gnome/help would be the
> best so that we don't need to have every package own /usr/share/gnome/help.


--
Pat

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

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:01:09PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Oops... I found the mailing list thread and there was a conclusion.
>> Packages should not require yelp. Instead, packages that fail silently
>
> That was not my conclusion. My conclusion was that it was up to the
> packager.
>
Well...
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg01522.html

Maybe there isn't a general case conclusion to draw but it sounds like
treating help as an optional feature is what was decided for at least
the desktop-team's subset of packages. We didn't generate any
Guidelines out of that discussion so the package probably isn't going to
raise any flags at review time.

> This doesn't change that your conclusion holds:
>
>> So it seems like filesystem owning /usr/share/gnome/help would be the
>> best so that we don't need to have every package own /usr/share/gnome/help.
>
<nod>

-Toshio

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

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:34:55PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> Maybe there isn't a general case conclusion to draw but it sounds like
> treating help as an optional feature is what was decided for at least
> the desktop-team's subset of packages. We didn't generate any

Indeed, and I remember there were some bugs filled. But the thread
shows that there was no consensus, and, for example, I kept yelp as
a gnochm dependency, considering that having a help window that comes
when clicking on help wasn't optional, and that the bloat wasn't too
important given that it already was a gnome app.

That being said, I orphaned gnochm, so everybody is free to remove
yelp

# repoquery --whatrequires yelp
gtranslator-0:1.1.7-9.fc10.i386
gnomesword-0:2.4.1-1.fc10.i386
gnochm-0:0.9.11-2.fc9.noarch
lat-0:1.2.3-4.fc10.i386
conglomerate-0:0.9.1-5.fc9.i386
gnucash-docs-0:2.2.0-2.fc8.noarch
gnomesword-0:2.4.0-1.fc10.i386

--
Pat

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