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 03-27-2008, 07:15 PM
Axel Thimm
 
Default one more draft

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 07:45:37AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 05:23:00PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > > On Monday 24 March 2008, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > Whatever the hardwired defaults at compile time the
> > > > /etc/sysconfig/vdr takes precedence. So the package's scripts can
> > > > easily autoadjust to whatever situation.
> > >
> > > Good to hear you know better; I expect to see code to back that up if the
> > > draft passes with a mandate to change the dirs
> >
> > Sure, that's what the FPC's jobs is: to go hunt all packages and fix
> > them. Good that I'm not a member anymore
>
> Eh. The FPC has not been claiming that this would be easy, you are.
>
> > Of course, the more serious answer is that this is the packager's job.
>
> Well, I say it's not feasible in the case of vdr, and that's not something I
> can prove; spending time on it and not coming up with a feasible solution is
> not a proof it can't be done, it's just silly waste of my time. On the other
> hand, you are parroting it's easy, and if it is, it should be easy for you to
> prove as well.

Come on Ville, I already gave an example in the first mail and you
agreed that this can be done that way. Then you started mumbling
things about fragile and whatnot. If it's done correct by the packager
it is not fragile. And after all it shouldn't had been under /srv in
the first place to start with. This discussion is very old and you
were aware that one day this could be formalized.

If every packager that didn't like a decision from the FPC would fall
on its back and say "Show me, I don't knwo how it's done", then we
wouldn't have any possible progress in the guidelines.

Anyway I'm not the FPC, the FPC will hold its meeting on this (or
already did) and will cast a decision. One hopefully leaving /srv to
the user/admin.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-30-2008, 06:03 AM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default one more draft

On Thursday 27 March 2008, Axel Thimm wrote:

> Come on Ville, I already gave an example in the first mail and you
> agreed that this can be done that way. Then you started mumbling
> things about fragile and whatnot.

I don't know what you're hoping to achieve by coloring things that way. My
fragility/feasibility concerns were there right from the start. Possibility
does not imply feasibility or robustness.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-March/msg00166.html

Anyway, without answers that contain some real data to the questions/requests
I've already made in this thread, I have nothing to add so I'll shut up now
until there's more real info available.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-30-2008, 08:31 AM
Axel Thimm
 
Default one more draft

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:03:27AM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Thursday 27 March 2008, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> > Come on Ville, I already gave an example in the first mail and you
> > agreed that this can be done that way. Then you started mumbling
> > things about fragile and whatnot.
>
> I don't know what you're hoping to achieve by coloring things that way. My
> fragility/feasibility concerns were there right from the start. Possibility
> does not imply feasibility or robustness.
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-March/msg00166.html
>
> Anyway, without answers that contain some real data to the questions/requests
> I've already made in this thread, I have nothing to add so I'll shut up now
> until there's more real info available.

Sorry, but this becomes bizarre.

You are the packager of this particular software and you made some
decisions on its layout. By definition you are the one that knows
about technical details of this package and how to implement FHS and
Fedora's guidelines.

But now you ask other people to dig into your package to tell you how
to fix it while you already wrote that everything needed is
configurable from a /etc/sysconfig file? Which most certainly an rpm
script can do whatever it pleases? Including detection of being and
upgrade (vs a fresh install) and the usage of a legacy /srv/vdr
partition in a %pre script and keep it?

I know you are a smart person and that you can solve much more
difficult tasks, but I get the feeling, that you just do not want to
cooperate in this issue. Please we don't need stumbling blocks to get
a clean /srv partition - try to implement the solution that will make
everyone glad, from the legacy users to the FPC.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
--
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 05:36 AM.

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