On 11/23/2009 11:04 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Tuesday,
> November 24, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative
> agenda:

Scratch that, this is wrong. I had forgotten that we'd moved to
Wednesdays, and this coming Wednesday will not work due to the
Thanksgiving holiday in the US.

Lets try this again.

The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Wednesday,
December 2, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative
agenda:

* pkgconfig autorequires:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires

* Revised Emacs add-on guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EmacsPackagingRevised

* man-pages guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Varekova/man-pages/missing-man-pages

* Python3 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python3

A reminder: If you have something that you want to get onto the FPC's
agenda, the procedure is documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedure

Thanks,

~spot

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

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:15 -0500
"Tom "spot" Callaway" <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/23/2009 11:04 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on
> > Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is
> > the tentative agenda:
>
> Scratch that, this is wrong. I had forgotten that we'd moved to
> Wednesdays, and this coming Wednesday will not work due to the
> Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
>
> Lets try this again.
>
> The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on
> Wednesday, December 2, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is
> the tentative agenda:
>
> * pkgconfig autorequires:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires

A quick comment on this: if pkgconfig isn't an explicit dependency,
what provides the ownership of the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig directory?

If all packages with .pc files omit the pkgconfig dependency, there
will be nothing actually pulling in pkgconfig itself, will there?

Paul.

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

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 21:25 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:15 -0500
> "Tom "spot" Callaway" <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > * pkgconfig autorequires:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires
>
> A quick comment on this: if pkgconfig isn't an explicit dependency,
> what provides the ownership of the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig directory?
>
> If all packages with .pc files omit the pkgconfig dependency, there
> will be nothing actually pulling in pkgconfig itself, will there?

RPM creates automatically a Requires: pkgconfig (actually, I think it is
Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config, which resolves to pkgconfig) for packages
that contain .pc files. So the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig dir ownership is OK.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola@fedoraproject.org

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

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:25:16PM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:15 -0500
> "Tom "spot" Callaway" <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/23/2009 11:04 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on
> > > Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is
> > > the tentative agenda:
> >
> > Scratch that, this is wrong. I had forgotten that we'd moved to
> > Wednesdays, and this coming Wednesday will not work due to the
> > Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
> >
> > Lets try this again.
> >
> > The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on
> > Wednesday, December 2, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is
> > the tentative agenda:
> >
> > * pkgconfig autorequires:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires
>
> A quick comment on this: if pkgconfig isn't an explicit dependency,
> what provides the ownership of the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig directory?
>
> If all packages with .pc files omit the pkgconfig dependency, there
> will be nothing actually pulling in pkgconfig itself, will there?
>
pkgconfig should now be an automatic dependency.

If you know of any corner cases where rpm doesn't autodetect, we should note
those.

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

Le 23/11/2009 17:08, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :

> The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Wednesday,
> December 2, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative
> agenda:

I've add to the TODO discussion list :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP

There is 3 minor updates to the Guideline (to be clearer)
- subfolder (in /usr/share/php)
- ABI Check (for C extension, not only PECL official one)
- additional comment (about scriptlet)

And an FPC decision seems necessary about package name
- most of old packages (>70) use only - (ex php-pear-Auth-SASL)
- some recent packages use mixed - and _ (ex php-pear-Auth_HTTP)
See
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-php-devel-list/2009-July/thread.html


I should be available to discuss this if needed.

Regards

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

On 11/24/2009 01:17 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> And an FPC decision seems necessary about package name
> - most of old packages (>70) use only - (ex php-pear-Auth-SASL)
> - some recent packages use mixed - and _ (ex php-pear-Auth_HTTP)
> See
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-php-devel-list/2009-July/thread.html

FWIW, I'd prefer the underscore not be used, but the guidelines
currently permit it, assuming it is inherited from upstream's naming.
However, given that practically all other packaged PHP modules use -, I
could see the merit in requiring PHP packages to replace - with _. Is
that what the PHP SIG is asking for FPC to approve?

~spot


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

On 11/24/2009 05:53 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

On 11/24/2009 01:17 AM, Remi Collet wrote:

And an FPC decision seems necessary about package name
- most of old packages (>70) use only - (ex php-pear-Auth-SASL)
- some recent packages use mixed - and _ (ex php-pear-Auth_HTTP)
See
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-php-devel-list/2009-July/thread.html


FWIW, I'd prefer the underscore not be used,


Would you mind to explain?

I am not aware about any technical reason for disallowing underscores.

Ralf

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

On 11/24/2009 12:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I am not aware about any technical reason for disallowing underscores.

I'm not aware of any technical reason either. It is a personal
preference, I think it makes the packages have a cleaner naming scheme.

Accordingly, I have never pushed for it to be a requirement that _ not
be used when upstream uses it in its naming, but if the PHP SIG asked
for us to amend the PHP naming guidelines to exclude it, I would
consider it.

~spot

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

On 11/24/2009 06:20 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

On 11/24/2009 12:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

I am not aware about any technical reason for disallowing underscores.


I'm not aware of any technical reason either. It is a personal
preference, I think it makes the packages have a cleaner naming scheme.

As you say, it's a matter of personal preference => insufficient rationale.


Accordingly, I have never pushed for it to be a requirement that _ not
be used when upstream uses it in its naming, but if the PHP SIG asked
for us to amend the PHP naming guidelines to exclude it, I would
consider it.

Then they should better elaborate their rationale.

I for one am opposed to any "transliteration", which isn't motivated by
strong technical reasons, because they only add further confusion.


Ralf

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

Le 24/11/2009 18:20, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> On 11/24/2009 12:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> I am not aware about any technical reason for disallowing underscores.
>
> I'm not aware of any technical reason either. It is a personal
> preference, I think it makes the packages have a cleaner naming scheme.

I agree
(when - and _ are present at the same time, make name really awful IMHO)

> Accordingly, I have never pushed for it to be a requirement that _ not
> be used when upstream uses it in its naming, but if the PHP SIG asked
> for us to amend the PHP naming guidelines to exclude it, I would
> consider it.

There is no censensus about this (if you have some time to read the
thread linked in the previous message)

First old packages (imported when the general Guidelines wasn't clear,
and probably to do like perl packages) use only - (more than 70, ex
php-pear-Auth-SASL)

Some New recent packages use both (ex php-pear-Auth_HTTP)

So I think decision go to FPC and must be written in the PHP Guidelines

Choice :
1- package must use only -
2- package must use - at the beginning (php-pear-) and _ at the end
3- package could use - or _ according to packager pref.

And I think maintainers are not ready to enter a massive rename plan.
I'm waiting for this before submiting new review (at least 4 packages).

+

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

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