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 03-20-2008, 10:07 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> writes:

RC> Fedora is once more about to make a (IMNSHO) faulty decision.

Wow, someone has a device to predict the future. I hope I get to
borrow it occasionally.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-21-2008, 02:37 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 18:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> writes:
>
> RC> Fedora is once more about to make a (IMNSHO) faulty decision.
>
> Wow, someone has a device to predict the future.
We are talking about "here and now" - The damage to Fedora allowing
utf-8 and chars like $`, etc. in package names does is immediate.


--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-21-2008, 06:53 AM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

Le vendredi 21 mars 2008 Ã* 04:37 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 18:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> writes:
> >
> > RC> Fedora is once more about to make a (IMNSHO) faulty decision.
> >
> > Wow, someone has a device to predict the future.
> We are talking about "here and now" - The damage to Fedora allowing
> utf-8 and chars like $`, etc. in package names does is immediate.

Well, you're one of those who raised a stink and now as a result we're
likely to get a badly written authoritative guideline that explicitely
allows practices much worse than the ones you were complained about (for
a package you had no interest in regardless of its naming). Me, I've
always been in favour of authorising full utf-8 as soon as our tools
were fixed, and let packagers use their best judgement.

But anyway some comments on the proposal:

> While Fedora is an international community, for consistency and
> usability, there needs to be a common character set for package
> naming.

Neat, however the distribution already has a common character set we
enforce everywhere else, that's UTF-8 (even default character set in
some package tools like comps files), and this rationalization could
apply just as well to UTF-8. Why is it that after weeks of flames we
proponents of writing this guideline can not come with a clear
rationale?

(note that the first version of the proposal was even worse and called
for translating package names in English ; I don't think stuff like
libcaca is in any English dictionnary)

> Specifically, all Fedora packages must be named using only the 94
> printable characters defined by ASCII. These characters are displayed
> here:

At least the author was careful enough to forbid non-printable
characters. But a screenshot is insufficient as definition — a cyrillic
A would fit right in.

> Fedora packagers are strongly suggested to avoid using
> non-AlphaNumeric characters from the printable ASCII character set
> whenever possible, but they are permitted.

Since there is no clear rationale in the spec it's difficult to judge if
this kind of clause helps achieving the actual aim. Nevertheless I'll
note that:
– space is a printable ASCII character and it's not being forbidden in
the guideline. Need I point out how completely irrational it is to worry
about what packagers might do if allowed UTF-8 and then bless space?
– & <> and friends are going to wreak much more havoc than allowing
UTF-8 and letting packagers use their good judgement to determine how
much UTF-8 is reasonable would ever had
– if the rationale was to be mirror, and FTP-safe (one of the arguments
advanced on the list) I'll note there are very common limited platforms,
and very common storage media, which are unable to handle casing safely,
so allowing mixed-case names is dangerous (and if the limited platform
is not justifying the guideline I don't see what does)

I'll state it again:

1. If we write a restrictive guideline, at least select correct
restrictions.

2. If no one can be bothered writing correct clear restrictions, do not
burden packagers with half-baked ones.

3. If we want a permissive guideline, stating that
a. package names are UTF-8 encoded like the rest of the distro,
b. that packagers should use their good judgement to determine how
much UTF-8 is reasonable,
c. that infra has the mandate to fix our unicode bugs
d. and that it can embargo anything outside the basic latin block till
it's done
… is just as fine and does not reek of prejudice like this version.

Regards,

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-23-2008, 02:35 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Thursday 20 March 2008, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 22:58 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > 3) Standardizing on try-restart when we have generally accepted use of
> > 'condrestart' seems problematic.
>
> Agreed. Its now all condrestart.

-1

Instead, just use try-restart in all examples, and add a note that condrestart
should/must for the time being be included in all scripts as an alias to
try-restart.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-23-2008, 02:40 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Thursday 20 March 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 18:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>
> > ASCII Naming Guidelines (spot) :
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ASCIINaming
>
> IMO, this proposal is not strict enough.
>
> 1. I think, we need to restrict package names to
> a-z, A-Z, 0-9, -, _

Seconded, except I think in addition to those listed, "." (eg. openoffice.org)
and "+" (eg. gcc-c++) should be fine.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-23-2008, 02:48 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Sunday 23 March 2008, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Thursday 20 March 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 18:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > ASCII Naming Guidelines (spot) :
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ASCIINaming
> >
> > IMO, this proposal is not strict enough.
> >
> > 1. I think, we need to restrict package names to
> > a-z, A-Z, 0-9, -, _
>
> Seconded, except I think in addition to those listed, "." (eg.
> openoffice.org) and "+" (eg. gcc-c++) should be fine.

Forgot to note that for the record, like I've always been, I'd still be all
for going all lowercase, but I fear trying to push this could create a fuss
which would endanger passing of the whole draft.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-23-2008, 03:22 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Thursday 20 March 2008, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

> Perl Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Perl

1) cpanspec should be pushed further down in the draft.

2) Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires:
"This is to ensure that all perl modules are built against the appropriate
version of perl."

This rationale is wrong - it doesn't ensure that, but that packages have a
dependency to a perl that uses stuff from dirs versioned with that version
number.

3) ExtUtils::Build doesn't exist AFAIK, did you mean Module::Build?

> Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins
> OpenOffice.org extensions guidelines (Caolan McNamara) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OpenOffice.orgExtensions

These look mostly sane, will need to read them some more though.

> Secure BuildRoot (Lubomir Kundrak) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SecureBuildRoot

-1 to any buildroot suggestion that doesn't propose implementing it internally
in rpm aiming for eventual deprecation and elimination of the BuildRoot tag
(and related "rm -rf"'s) in specfiles.

Anyway, specific to the submitted draft, both alternatives cause buildroot
trashing even with innocent "rpm -q --specfile foo.spec" or "rpmbuild -bp
foo.spec" or "rpmbuild -bs foo.spec".

Additionally, the second makes dangerous assumptions which can wreak havoc
in %clean when one overrides the build root (eg. %buildroot in ~/.rpmmacros).

> Register VirtualProvides (Patrice Dumas) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesList

+1 to the general idea, however I'm somewhat uncertain about
server(port_name), it needs more explanation. Consider for example the
tomcat5 package: it's configured to use port 8080 by default. I don't think
server(webcache) would describe it well at all. Also, changing servers to
run in non-default ports is pretty common and kind of breaks the "contract"
of server(port_name), but perhaps that's just a documentation issue.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-23-2008, 03:43 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

Le dimanche 23 mars 2008 à 17:48 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :

> Forgot to note that for the record, like I've always been, I'd still be all
> for going all lowercase, but I fear trying to push this could create a fuss
> which would endanger passing of the whole draft.

So you advocate bowing to a group of people that raised a fuss, and not
doing what you think is the right thing because others people may raise
a fuss? Where is the engineering in that? Or should we dispense with the
whole FPC thing and just do online polls?

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-23-2008, 07:01 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 06:22:47PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>
> > Register VirtualProvides (Patrice Dumas) :
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesList
>
> +1 to the general idea, however I'm somewhat uncertain about
> server(port_name), it needs more explanation. Consider for example the

You mean on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/VilleSkyttä/VirtualProvides

There is no mention of server(port_name) on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesList

It is explained on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ServerProvides
I had understood that it had been ratified, but I may be wrong.
I wanted to wait for the guideline to have find a new home with a more
definitive content, but I can add the link right now on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/VilleSkyttä/VirtualProvides

> tomcat5 package: it's configured to use port 8080 by default. I don't think
> server(webcache) would describe it well at all. Also, changing servers to

8080 is used for too much stuff to be usefull in a Requires, in my
opinion. Still should be server(webcache) is a server listening on
localhost on this port wants to have this ability provided, in case it
would have make sense.

> run in non-default ports is pretty common and kind of breaks the "contract"
> of server(port_name), but perhaps that's just a documentation issue.

Also the server may not be started.

--
Pat

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-23-2008, 07:08 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Sunday 23 March 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le dimanche 23 mars 2008 à 17:48 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
> > Forgot to note that for the record, like I've always been, I'd still be
> > all for going all lowercase, but I fear trying to push this could create
> > a fuss which would endanger passing of the whole draft.
>
> So you advocate bowing to a group of people that raised a fuss,

Personally, I'm surprised that the the thing in question is something that
even needs much discussion, and further I don't think people advocating
sticking with a subset of ASCII are necessarily the fussier side in this
debate.

> and not
> doing what you think is the right thing because others people may raise
> a fuss? Where is the engineering in that?

It's called incremental engineering. I'd rather get a subset of possible
improvements in smaller digestible chunks than none at all.

> Or should we dispense with the
> whole FPC thing and just do online polls?

I believe that way we'd get more folks' opinions voiced and counted which is
good, but would also practically be left without the work the FPC does when
working with drafts after they're submitted and before they're voted on which
is a bigger drawback than using polls would be good for.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 PM.

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