This goes out specifically to the Fedora Packaging Committee Members,
but is certainly open for comments from all.
We've got a lot of drafts that are queued up for next Tuesday's meeting,
so it would be very helpful if you read them all well in advance:
As always, this list is pulled from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo (which embeds the
table from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo ):
I don't have the Java Guidelines draft on the list yet, but I hope that
it will be ready by next Tuesday:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java
Next Tuesday will undoubtedly be a longer meeting than normal, so please
be prepared.
Thanks,
~spot
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
1) I'm of the opinion that LSB headers should be optional. There is no
requirement in the LSB for any system scripts to be LSB compliant, and
it can cause issues with ordering.
2) Various times it is stated that:
...
Note: Fedora's init daemons (sysvinit, upstart) do not currently use
non-system boot facilities defined in the <some LSB> line when ordering
initscripts. Fedora packagers must ensure that they have priority ordering
set correctly in the chkconfig header.
...
This is incorrect. What happens is that on script enablement (chkconfig --add)
and script activation/deactivation (chkconfig on/chkconfig off) the LSB
dependencies are read, and the start and stop priorities of the scripts
are then adjusted to satisfy those dependencies.
What this means:
- dependencies are honored (albeit in a static mechanism)
- if you use LSB headers, your start and stop priority may end up being
different than what's in the chkconfig: line
This is the same for both upstart (as it is implemented now) and sysvinit.
3) Standardizing on try-restart when we have generally accepted use of
'condrestart' seems problematic.
Bill
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
03-20-2008, 02:52 AM
Ralf Corsepius
Drafts for next Tuesday
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 18:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> This goes out specifically to the Fedora Packaging Committee Members,
> but is certainly open for comments from all.
>
> We've got a lot of drafts that are queued up for next Tuesday's meeting,
> so it would be very helpful if you read them all well in advance:
>
> As always, this list is pulled from
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo (which embeds the
> table from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo ):
>
> 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, -, _
2. I do not agree to the "When Upstream Naming is outside ..." section.
This section is unnecessarily/avoidable adding confusion for
maintainers. Non-ASCII names have always been banned rsp. technically
impossible ever since Linux exists => this is a non-issue.
> Perl Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Perl
> InitDir location (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InitDir
> Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins
> OpenOffice.org extensions guidelines (Caolan McNamara) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OpenOffice.orgExtensions
> Secure BuildRoot (Lubomir Kundrak) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SecureBuildRoot
> Register VirtualProvides (Patrice Dumas) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesList
> SysV-style Initscript Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript
>
> I don't have the Java Guidelines draft on the list yet, but I hope that
> it will be ready by next Tuesday:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java
>
> Next Tuesday will undoubtedly be a longer meeting than normal, so please
> be prepared.
Friday, Sunday, Monday are public holidays in Germany (Easter).
I'll be off next week (vacation) and therefore will likely not be able
to attend due to other commitments.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
03-20-2008, 04:22 AM
Ralf Corsepius
Drafts for next Tuesday
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 18:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> This goes out specifically to the Fedora Packaging Committee Members,
> but is certainly open for comments from all.
>
> We've got a lot of drafts that are queued up for next Tuesday's meeting,
> so it would be very helpful if you read them all well in advance:
Due to the fact, I'll likely not be able to attend on Tuesday,
preliminary comments/answers/votes interspersed.
> ASCII Naming Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ASCIINaming
Already replied in a separate mail.
> Perl Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Perl
Generally OK, but I am missing a section on perl subdirectory directory
ownership.
My vote: 0 without such a section, +1 with such a section.
Also, I do not agree upon the section on "Makefile.PL vs. Build.PL",
but ... this is nothing new. I would prefer leaving the choice to the
maintainer and not to explicitly recommend Build.PL.
> InitDir location (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InitDir
0, I don't understand what this draft is trying to say and which
problems it is trying to solve. Could you explain?
> Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins
0, no opinion on this.
> OpenOffice.org extensions guidelines (Caolan McNamara) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OpenOffice.orgExtensions
OK for FC > 9, not OK for FC < 9
The unopkg concerns still apply
- /usr/bin/unopkg is not available for FC < 9
Updating the FC8/7 packages to provide them won't help, because users
might not have "updates" installed.
- Also, I am not sure if /usr/bin is the appropriate location to install
unopkg. /usr/sbin/ might be more appropriate.
OK as a recommendation for Fedora < 10, but should not be made mandatory
before Fedora 10 (or even later), IMO.
Should this proposal be accepted, rel-eng should implement it into all
packages during a mass-rebuild, may-be accompanied with rpm's upstream
implementing it as "default buildroot" into (FC10's) rpm.
Not clear enough. Many packages apply virtual provides not covered by
these lists (e.g. alternate package names, obsoletes/provides, legacy
provides etc.) This proposal doesn't specify which class of virtual
provides it is aiming at.
> SysV-style Initscript Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript
+1, Seems OK to me.
> I don't have the Java Guidelines draft on the list yet, but I hope that
> it will be ready by next Tuesday:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java
0, for now, no opinion on that. I don't see any obvious mistake/flaw,
but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on java to be able to comment on
details.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
03-20-2008, 06:31 AM
Nicolas Mailhot
Drafts for next Tuesday
Le jeudi 20 mars 2008 à 04:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> 2. I do not agree to the "When Upstream Naming is outside ..." section.
>
> This section is unnecessarily/avoidable adding confusion for
> maintainers. Non-ASCII names have always been banned rsp. technically
> impossible ever since Linux exists => this is a non-issue.
That's blatantly false. They've not been "banned", otherwise the
document would not be written today, and they've not been "impossible".
What changed is that the 8-bits encoding that passed through before are
being replaced by an encoding that lifts all the translating/regional
incompatibility problems and adds some technical requirements that could
be taken care of.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
03-20-2008, 06:38 AM
Nicolas Mailhot
Drafts for next Tuesday
Le jeudi 20 mars 2008 à 04:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> 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, -, _
If FPC goes that way I'll ask for a-z O-9 - only. Casing breaks on
Windows mirrors and FAT USB sticks and this kind of incompatibity has
been one of the main arguments for writing this guideline. And there's
no need for _ when you have - and are asking people to rewrite names
anyway.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
03-20-2008, 07:20 AM
Ralf Corsepius
Drafts for next Tuesday
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 08:31 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le jeudi 20 mars 2008 à 04:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>
> > 2. I do not agree to the "When Upstream Naming is outside ..." section.
> >
> > This section is unnecessarily/avoidable adding confusion for
> > maintainers. Non-ASCII names have always been banned rsp. technically
> > impossible ever since Linux exists => this is a non-issue.
>
> That's blatantly false.
I guess I don't have to mention that I whole heartily disagree.
> They've not been "banned", otherwise the
> document would not be written today,
This document has been written, because you and your écollier-fonts
package submissing are challenging what had been "common sense" to most
experienced users, so far.
> and they've not been "impossible".
You still seem to refuse to understand the issue.
Installing your package is technically close to impossible to many
users, because they are not able to type/read/display its name
May-be you don't see this problem, because "é" is common in your
culture - To others, it's unreadable, undisplayable "fly dirt" (German
hacker slang for unreadable, undisplayable characters), "Greek" as
Englishmen might be calling it.
> What changed is that the 8-bits encoding that passed through before are
> being replaced by an encoding that lifts all the translating/regional
> incompatibility problems and adds some technical requirements that could
> be taken care of.
I disagree. SuSE and Debian have it right.
Fedora is once more about to make a (IMNSHO) faulty decision.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
03-20-2008, 07:26 AM
Ralf Corsepius
Drafts for next Tuesday
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 08:38 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le jeudi 20 mars 2008 à 04:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> > 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, -, _
Adding '.' (to cater openoffice) would match what had been practice ever
since.
> If FPC goes that way I'll ask for a-z O-9 - only. Casing breaks on
> Windows mirrors and FAT USB sticks and this kind of incompatibity has
> been one of the main arguments for writing this guideline. And there's
> no need for _ when you have - and are asking people to rewrite names
> anyway.
Sorry, I can't take this remark serious.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
03-20-2008, 08:00 AM
Patrice Dumas
Drafts for next Tuesday
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 06:22:39AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > Register VirtualProvides (Patrice Dumas) :
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesList
> -1
>
> Not clear enough. Many packages apply virtual provides not covered by
> these lists (e.g. alternate package names, obsoletes/provides, legacy
> provides etc.) This proposal doesn't specify which class of virtual
> provides it is aiming at.
Thanks for the input, I completly forgot about those since they are
outside of the scope, though alternate names is at the limit... I am indeed
focused on alternate functionalities or similar provides. I'll update.
--
Pat
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
03-20-2008, 08:10 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
Drafts for next Tuesday
Le Jeu 20 mars 2008 09:20, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 08:31 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le jeudi 20 mars 2008 à 04:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>>
>> > 2. I do not agree to the "When Upstream Naming is outside ..."
>> section.
>> >
>> > This section is unnecessarily/avoidable adding confusion for
>> > maintainers. Non-ASCII names have always been banned rsp.
>> technically
>> > impossible ever since Linux exists => this is a non-issue.
>>
>> That's blatantly false.
> I guess I don't have to mention that I whole heartily disagree.
You can disagree all you want that's a plain fact hard. I did the
tests and you didn't. In fact they show a the breakage when it happens
is in the upper layers bolted over rpm in the recent years, and I
doubt this was a conscious design decision of the people who wrote
them.
You could probably shove an 8-bit iso-8859-1 name (which is not the
same thing as 7-bit ASCII) through the whole infrastructure today and
it wouldn't blink.
>> They've not been "banned", otherwise the
>> document would not be written today,
> This document has been written, because you and your écollier-fonts
> package submissing are challenging what had been "common sense" to
> most
> experienced users, so far.
>
>> and they've not been "impossible".
> You still seem to refuse to understand the issue.
>
> Installing your package is technically close to impossible to many
> users, because they are not able to type/read/display its name
Nevertheless the plain fact is that they've not been impossible and
they've not been banned before.
> May-be you don't see this problem, because "é" is common in your
> culture - To others, it's unreadable, undisplayable "fly dirt" (German
> hacker slang for unreadable, undisplayable characters), "Greek" as
> Englishmen might be calling it.
I perfectly understand the problem, which is why I object to you
pretending it's something else to shore up your arguments.
>> What changed is that the 8-bits encoding that passed through before
>> are
>> being replaced by an encoding that lifts all the
>> translating/regional
>> incompatibility problems and adds some technical requirements that
>> could
>> be taken care of.
> I disagree. SuSE and Debian have it right.
Which again are soft policies, not the impossibility you pretend in
your message.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
Drafts for next Tuesday
