FESCo request: guideline about dependencies on redhat-lsb
 

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:51:25PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> As a followup to FESCo ticket 346 (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/346),
> FESCo would like the Fedora Packaging Committee to draft a guideline against
> dependencies on redhat-lsb (and its potential subpackages). The idea is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that appllications in Fedora should be packaged to use the Fedora native
> tools, not their LSB equivalents.

I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09" that it would
also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been
made more granular.

Regards
Till
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

FESCo request: guideline about dependencies on redhat-lsb
 

On 03/16/2010 06:07 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09" that it would
> also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been
> made more granular.

Given that the purpose of that package was really twofold:

1. To ensure that all the dependencies for an LSB certified system were
in place (which is why it depends on half the repository)

2. To provide the LSB functions and scripts

We could simply divide it into:

lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts)
lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)

It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the
naming scheme.

Thoughts?

~spot
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

FESCo request: guideline about dependencies on redhat-lsb
 

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

> Given that the purpose of that package was really twofold:
>
> 1. To ensure that all the dependencies for an LSB certified system were
> in place (which is why it depends on half the repository)
>
> 2. To provide the LSB functions and scripts
>
> We could simply divide it into:
>
> lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts)
> lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
>
> It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the
> naming scheme.
>

+1

-sv

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

FESCo request: guideline about dependencies on redhat-lsb
 

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 06:07 PM, Till Maas wrote:
>
>> I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09" that it would
>> also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been
>> made more granular.
>>
>
> Given that the purpose of that package was really twofold:
>
> 1. To ensure that all the dependencies for an LSB certified system were
> in place (which is why it depends on half the repository)
>
> 2. To provide the LSB functions and scripts
>
> We could simply divide it into:
>
> lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts)
> lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
>
> It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the
> naming scheme.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ~spot
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>
+1

--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

FESCo request: guideline about dependencies on redhat-lsb
 

On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:11 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and
> lsb-scripts)
> lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
>
> It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the
> naming scheme.
>
> Thoughts?

Would you then be making lsb-scripts require lsb-cert? Or would you
break that so that you can have lsb-scripts without the cert?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

FESCo request: guideline about dependencies on redhat-lsb
 

On 03/17/2010 11:45 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:11 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and
>> lsb-scripts)
>> lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
>>
>> It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the
>> naming scheme.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Would you then be making lsb-scripts require lsb-cert? Or would you
> break that so that you can have lsb-scripts without the cert?

Yeah, the intent is so that lsb-scripts no longer requires the whole
pile of lsb-cert Requires.

~spot
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

FESCo request: guideline about dependencies on redhat-lsb
 

It may be better to draftÂ*aÂ*guidelineÂ*against dependenciesÂ*onÂ*redhat-lsb. In my opinion the purpose of redhat-lib is
just making fedora an LSB compliant distribution that proprietary softwares such as opera, adobe reader canÂ*run in fedora or other LSB compliant distributions with system-wide dynamic libsÂ*instead ofÂ*linking static libs.
Â*No packages in official fedora repo really need reqiure lsb package.


Regard,
Chen Lei
On 2010-03-17Â*06:07:36，"TillÂ*Maas"Â*<opensource@till.name >Â* wrote：
>OnÂ*Tue,Â*MarÂ*16,Â*2010Â*atÂ*03:51:25PMÂ*-0400,Â*BillÂ*NottinghamÂ*wrote:
>>Â*AsÂ*aÂ*followupÂ*toÂ*FESCoÂ*ticketÂ*346Â*(http s://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/346),
>>Â*FESCoÂ*wouldÂ*likeÂ*theÂ*FedoraÂ*PackagingÂ*Co mmitteeÂ*toÂ*draftÂ*aÂ*guidelineÂ*against
>>Â*dependenciesÂ*onÂ*redhat-lsbÂ*(andÂ*itsÂ*potentialÂ*subpackages).Â*TheÂ*ide aÂ*is
>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â *Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Â*thatÂ*appllicationsÂ*inÂ*FedoraÂ*shouldÂ*beÂ*p ackagedÂ*toÂ*useÂ*theÂ*FedoraÂ*native
>>Â*tools,Â*notÂ*theirÂ*LSBÂ*equivalents.
>
>IÂ*understandÂ*theÂ*commentÂ*fromÂ*KevinÂ*atÂ*" 03/16/10Â*21:11:09"Â*thatÂ*itÂ*would
>alsoÂ*beÂ*okÂ*toÂ*requireÂ*potentialÂ*subpackages Â*onceÂ*redhat-lsbÂ*hasÂ*been
>madeÂ*moreÂ*granular.
>
>Regards
>Till


--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging