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 Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-14-2012, 08:11 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 04/14/2012 02:32 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 04:57:29 PM Tom Callaway wrote:

A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to the
intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
merge as many of them as possible into the upstream boost source tree,
and the visible efforts of the upstream to keep the bundled copy of
boost in sync with the current boost releases.

The package must also include a Requires: bundled(boost) = $VERSION
where $VERSION is the boost version being bundled.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_grant
ed_exceptions



While I appreciate the work Brett Lentz has been putting in upstream, why does
this package have to be taken away from me?

I'm already facing a "thanks for your work but no thanks"[1].

I respectfully request Uncle Shadowman *not* be forcefully made the owner of
the package, and the reporter of the review request be granted ownership.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696#c114


No need for this to be mutually exclusive, unless one (or both) of you
are averse to being comaintainers?


-- rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2012, 09:30 PM
Jeroen van Meeuwen
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Saturday, April 14, 2012 03:11:46 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
> No need for this to be mutually exclusive, unless one (or both) of you
> are averse to being comaintainers?
>

I'm objecting based on the matters of principle and due process.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

--
Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
m: +44 74 2516 3817
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2012, 09:30 PM
Jeroen van Meeuwen
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Saturday, April 14, 2012 03:11:46 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
> No need for this to be mutually exclusive, unless one (or both) of you
> are averse to being comaintainers?
>

I'm objecting based on the matters of principle and due process.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

--
Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
m: +44 74 2516 3817
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 04-16-2012, 03:41 PM
Brett Lentz
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 14/04/12 20:32 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 04:57:29 PM Tom Callaway wrote:

A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to the
intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
merge as many of them as possible into the upstream boost source tree,
and the visible efforts of the upstream to keep the bundled copy of
boost in sync with the current boost releases.

The package must also include a Requires: bundled(boost) = $VERSION
where $VERSION is the boost version being bundled.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_grant
ed_exceptions



While I appreciate the work Brett Lentz has been putting in upstream, why does
this package have to be taken away from me?

I'm already facing a "thanks for your work but no thanks"[1].



I apologize if that's how it sounded. That wasn't my intended meaning. The issue was that
you just started dropping your updated specs into the bug report without any
comment and seemingly prior to understanding the scope of the exception
that was granted. In addition, your last update to the bug was on 2010-11-21. As far as I could
tell, you had abandoned this review request.


I respectfully request Uncle Shadowman *not* be forcefully made the owner of
the package, and the reporter of the review request be granted ownership.



As we've discussed elsewhere, I see no reason why we can't share ownership of
the package. We've both contributed quite a bit to making the package
acceptable for Fedora, and there's plenty of room for both of us to continue
maintaining it.


Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696#c114

--
Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
m: +44 74 2516 3817
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08


---Brett.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:28 PM
Tom Callaway
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Here are the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:

---

A new section has been added to the SysV Initscripts section, discussing
the proper use of subsys locking. Even though Fedora packages should no
longer be using SysV Initscripts as a primary service mechanism, Red Hat
Enterprise Linux and EPEL do. Additionally,
Red Hat points partners to the Fedora Guidelines when they build for RHEL.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Careful_Handling_of_.2Fva r.2Flock.2Fsubsys.2F.3Cservice_name.3E_mechanism

---

The review guidelines now reflect the use of sha256sum (instead of
md5sum) to confirm upstream source integrity.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Things_To_Check_On_Revi ew

---

The PHP Packaging guidelines have been updated to include guidance about
when it is appropriate to have an explicit Requires on httpd & mod_php,
how to handle explicit Requires on PHP extensions, and how to handle a
Requires for a minimum PHP version.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Apache_requirement
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Extensions_Requires
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Requiring_a_Minimum_PHP_version

---

A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines,
covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional_RPM_M acros

---

A new section on the Documentation= field in systemd unit files (F17+)
has been added.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Documentation_field

---

A short section on the Group tag in Fedora packages has been added.
All current versions of Fedora (and their respective RPM versions) treat
the Group tag as optional. Packages may include a Group: field for
compatibility with EPEL, but are not required to do so.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag

---

The RHEL conditionalization has been removed from the Python3 example
spec file, as it is no longer valid.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_spec_file

---

These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging
Committee (FPC).

Many thanks to Remi Collet, David Malcolm, Vit Ondruch, Lennart
Poettering, Michael Scherer, Dave Sullivan, and all of the members of
the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing these guidelines.

As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If
you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can
suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure

Thanks,

~tom
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-03-2012, 10:56 AM
Peter Lemenkov
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Hello All.

2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@0pointer.de>:
> On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines,
>> covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros.
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional_RPM_M acros
>
> What's the rationale behind having these in /etc? This is hardly user
> configuration, and only ever used if people build their own RPMs. We
> really should try harder not to clutter /etc with stuff that is not
> configuration.
>
> Why not have this somewhere below /usr?

Agree. We should install them into /usr/lib/rpm.
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-03-2012, 11:17 AM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

In the interests of balance, there are costs to changing things:

- Documentation becomes obsolete and has to be rewritten.

- People have to be retrained.

- People have to relearn tasks that they know how to do now.

- Fedora becomes incompatible with other Linux and Unix (BSD etc) distros.

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 AM.

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