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 01-11-2012, 08:20 AM
Matthias Runge
 
Default Question regarding split of packages

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/01/12 12:10, Simone Caronni wrote:
> Hello,
I just stumbled upon this:

the plan is to separate the bacula-docs subpackage from bacula package
and create a new package bacula-docs.
(review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941 )

My question is, is the split possible in existing trees, e.g in F16?
This step doesn't introduce new features, so it shouldn't harm

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision

There's just the situation that bacula-docs is provided from earlier
bacula-package and also from bacula-docs. Would those two clash in
stable branches?

Thanks,
- --
Matthias Runge <mrunge@matthias-runge.de>
<mrunge@fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPDVRJAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIW6ywH/jF+C/DLB+Q+cLQXQ87KokuU
bS2SPWuO3Z2UrX7oiNQHTJ5111sHvJETKL+WmQJQiE6HJus/GEerrIzGOICUYVjZ
Hzi+l4UqKlhpLTs/2tc6fJv5la+oGQgtuGaoDXnIaCz2igcuXEYMzJxNJS34sD8w
ZjgWz4fRtcyVD5u/x6CCVepHvnpDOZvRHsjaEPQOExTAKvkvvho6HBZu5m9oQtJq
9HrkkbyDMx+n2C162GXdwZt7cpW0/lIElQfnKttyQ8U8SMvjdy+nmYqpq0cf6fvB
U5/h7l2TV2JYsHxOYzM/uD/BXorT+C+shI7PL28vmzn8+gpopjsTPRPW2UAhakI=
=SlHy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-11-2012, 08:30 AM
Paul Howarth
 
Default Question regarding split of packages

On 01/11/2012 09:20 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/01/12 12:10, Simone Caronni wrote:

Hello,

I just stumbled upon this:

the plan is to separate the bacula-docs subpackage from bacula package
and create a new package bacula-docs.
(review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941 )

My question is, is the split possible in existing trees, e.g in F16?
This step doesn't introduce new features, so it shouldn't harm

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision

There's just the situation that bacula-docs is provided from earlier
bacula-package and also from bacula-docs. Would those two clash in
stable branches?


Shouldn't be a problem as longs as the NEVRs are different. Some perl
modules are provided by the main perl package and also independently,
resulting in two versions of the same package being available and that
doesn't seem to be a problem.


Paul.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-11-2012, 08:37 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Question regarding split of packages

On 01/11/2012 10:20 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/01/12 12:10, Simone Caronni wrote:

Hello,

I just stumbled upon this:

the plan is to separate the bacula-docs subpackage from bacula package
and create a new package bacula-docs.
(review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941 )

My question is, is the split possible in existing trees, e.g in F16?
When carefully done, yes. The minimum requirement would be such a change
to be "100% transparent to users within a Fedora release".


IMO, however, the better question would be "why to split out docs?".

In general, separate doc packages make sense in cases they are "very
large" or in case the docs are "mostly irrelevant" to users (i.e. hardly
anybody will want to read/install them).


In all other cases separate doc packages do not add many benefits but
only add packaging complexity (esp. dependencies) and add sources of
potential bugs.


I am not familiar with your package to be able to comment on your
particular case.


Ralf
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-11-2012, 08:44 AM
Simone Caronni
 
Default Question regarding split of packages

Hello,

all the rationale on splitting is written in the first post of the bug review.
I'm pasting it here for reference.

The main reason is of course avoiding building and updating 40+ mb of docs that should change only once a year instead of every update.


Notes:

This is a spinoff of the bacula-docs subpackage that is present inside bacula
that I'm currently co-mantaining:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=281423

Motivations for the spin-off:

- To avoid rebuilding 40 mb of docs each release that never change and to avoid
uploading 40 mb for each koji scratch build.
- It is pointless to have the user update all the docs each time we generate a
new bacula package because of a security fix or bug.
- It is also built for RHEL 4/5/6 (most of the userbase goes there), and in
RHEL 4/5 there's no way to specify a different BuildArch in a subpackage, so
i.e. on RHEL 5 you got "x86_64" pdf files.
- The package bacula-gui (currently not available in Fedora) will follow the
same approach and be a separate Review Request.

Package notes:

- It has the release number immediately after the one which is in rawhide so it
will update the one generated from the bacula package. If it's accepted I will
remove the docs in the bacula package.
- It passes all rpmlint checks.
- It doesn't have an install section, all documents are included as %docs from
the source folder where they are generated.

Regards,
--Simone




On 11 January 2012 10:37, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:

On 01/11/2012 10:20 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1



On 10/01/12 12:10, Simone Caronni wrote:


Hello,


I just stumbled upon this:



the plan is to separate the bacula-docs subpackage from bacula package

and create a new package bacula-docs.

(review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941 )



My question is, is the split possible in existing trees, e.g in F16?


When carefully done, yes. The minimum requirement would be such a change to be "100% transparent to users within a Fedora release".



IMO, however, the better question would be "why to split out docs?".



In general, separate doc packages make sense in cases they are "very large" or in case the docs are "mostly irrelevant" to users (i.e. hardly anybody will want to read/install them).



In all other cases separate doc packages do not add many benefits but only add packaging complexity (esp. dependencies) and add sources of potential bugs.



I am not familiar with your package to be able to comment on your particular case.



Ralf

--

packaging mailing list

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

--
You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson).



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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:53 AM.

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