Meeting minutes and full logs of the 2009-01-20 FPC meeting are online:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes/20090120
Summary:
The following drafts are now official guidelines, having been accepted by FESCo last week:
* Font package splitting rules - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_%... * Font package naming - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_%282009-01...
These should be written into the guidelines soon if this hasn't already been done by the time you read this.
Issues pending FESCo ratification:
* Explicit Requires * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExplicitRequires * Note that this contains an additional section about commenting non-obvious items in spec files.
* Updated Haskell Guidelines * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell
* Symlinks * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Symlinks
- J<
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:18:23PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
- Explicit Requires
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExplicitRequires
- Note that this contains an additional section about commenting non-obvious items in spec files.
... which says:
"Anything in the spec file which is not obvious should have a comment explaining it.
Some examples of non-obvious items include (but are not limited to):
* Some explicit requires * FHS violations * Changes to optflags * Not using %configure or make install * Provides/Obsoletes * Modified tarballs * Licensing or legal related changes"
I trust these are really just examples, not a list of things that have to be commented on. And that reviewers who are blindly running through the guidelines and not paying much attention won't treat this as a bullet list of must-have comments.
All MinGW packages violate FHS [previously discussed ad nauseam] by using /usr/i686-pc-mingw32. We also use a custom %_mingw32_configure macro instead of %configure. %configure isn't useful for non-autoconf packages, or for packages which have a ./configure script that isn't autoconf-generated. In fact "make install" won't work on packages that don't use make.
Apart from creating unnecessary make-work for packagers, I wonder what the point of this is. A better guideline would just have this sentence and nothing else:
"Anything in the spec file which is not obvious to a competent packager familiar with the relevant guidelines should have a comment explaining it."
Rich.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
"Anything in the spec file which is not obvious should have a comment explaining it.
Some examples of non-obvious items include (but are not limited to):
* Some explicit requires * FHS violations * Changes to optflags * Not using %configure or make install * Provides/Obsoletes * Modified tarballs * Licensing or legal related changes"
I trust these are really just examples, not a list of things that have to be commented on. And that reviewers who are blindly running through the guidelines and not paying much attention won't treat this as a bullet list of must-have comments.
That's the intention. If reviewers don't read them that way we'll have to write it in a way that is clearer.
-Toshio