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 01-28-2011, 02:59 PM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default how to handle a common (base) package

Hello all,
During the review [1] of the redland-bindings package , I came across
a situation where there are common %doc files that need to be shared
across different bindings. These are:
%doc AUTHORS COPYING COPYING.LIB ChangeLog
%doc LICENSE.txt NEWS README TODO
%doc LICENSE.html NEWS.html README.html TODO.html
%doc LICENSE-2.0.txt NOTICE
%doc RELEASE.html

The package has perl, php, python and ruby bindings, each of which has
its own subpackage, i.e.
perl-redland
php-redland
python-redland
ruby-redland
and the above are the only common files across. The question is, where
do these files go?

Shall we make a common package and make all the binding subpackages
depend on it? If so, what shall be the name of the common package? I
need to add that some of the bindings have different licenses, so some
of the above license files may be irrelevant for some of the bindings.

Thanks,
Orcan

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659082
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-28-2011, 03:02 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default how to handle a common (base) package

Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Hello all,
> During the review [1] of the redland-bindings package , I came across
> a situation where there are common %doc files that need to be shared
> across different bindings. These are:
> %doc AUTHORS COPYING COPYING.LIB ChangeLog
> %doc LICENSE.txt NEWS README TODO
> %doc LICENSE.html NEWS.html README.html TODO.html
> %doc LICENSE-2.0.txt NOTICE
> %doc RELEASE.html
>
> The package has perl, php, python and ruby bindings, each of which has
> its own subpackage, i.e.
> perl-redland
> php-redland
> python-redland
> ruby-redland
> and the above are the only common files across. The question is, where
> do these files go?
>
> Shall we make a common package and make all the binding subpackages
> depend on it? If so, what shall be the name of the common package? I
> need to add that some of the bindings have different licenses, so some
> of the above license files may be irrelevant for some of the bindings.
>
> Thanks,
> Orcan
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659082
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>
Put the universally common ones in a -common subpackage, and put the
ones that only apply to some in those subpackages, I think.

J

--
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
 
Old 01-28-2011, 03:11 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default how to handle a common (base) package

On 01/28/2011 04:59 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Hello all,
> During the review [1] of the redland-bindings package , I came across
> a situation where there are common %doc files that need to be shared
> across different bindings. These are:
> %doc AUTHORS COPYING COPYING.LIB ChangeLog
> %doc LICENSE.txt NEWS README TODO
> %doc LICENSE.html NEWS.html README.html TODO.html
> %doc LICENSE-2.0.txt NOTICE
> %doc RELEASE.html
>
> The package has perl, php, python and ruby bindings, each of which has
> its own subpackage, i.e.
> perl-redland
> php-redland
> python-redland
> ruby-redland
> and the above are the only common files across. The question is, where
> do these files go?

Apply common sense and add them where appropriate and where necessary

> Shall we make a common package and make all the binding subpackages
> depend on it? If so, what shall be the name of the common package?
Not being familar with this package, this question confuses me.

You said "binding subpackage" - to me this implies there is a "natural
common base package".

> I
> need to add that some of the bindings have different licenses, so some
> of the above license files may be irrelevant for some of the bindings.
Common ones can go into a common base package, those which only apply to
individual subpackages, should go into their subpackage.

Also check if you really need to package both *.html and *.txt versions
or if they carry identical contents.

Ralf


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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 AM.

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