7:57 a.m.
Let me preface this by mentioning that I haven't got a clue about packaging,
so assuming I am a complete idiot wouldn't be inappropriate.
Eric discovered back in January that there are a couple of show stoppers to
using Publican for Docs. He thought he was going to get the issues fixed in
a short time, but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it will
happen. Eric developed a workaround by hacking Publican. Unfortunately,
using this approach would require everyone participating in Docs to have a
hacked Publican, and the hack breaks Publican for other uses. A switch
would be nice, and acceptable to the Publican developers, but apparently it
would take a lot of effort and there is only one maintainer.
Publican does almost everything we need to do between the wiki and the RPM,
so we would really like to use it rather than the mish-mash of tools we
currently have.
There are two problems:
1) Publican names the package incorrectly
2) The .desktop file is handled differently than the reviewers would like
Now it seems to me, worst case we could run Publican and then package the
HTMLs manually. But since Publican already does most of the heavy lifting,
why not simply patch Publican's work after the fact.
To this end, I made an attempt to do the following:
1) Unpack the SRPM produced by Publican, The SRPM has 2 files, a tarball and
a specfile
2) Rename the tarball, which involves untarring and retarring it
3) Edit the specfile
4) rpmbuild
I wrote down the details of what I did at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jjmcd/Drafts/Converting_Publican_RPM_...
When I do this, the resulting RPM passes rpmlint, installs correctly, and
seems to meet the guidelines. What am I missing? Well, appears to install
correctly. A menu entry appears and when I click on it I see release notes.
Maybe there are less obvious things going on.
As far as the .desktop file, I don't fully understand the issue here. The
code produced by Publican appears to be almost identical to that in the
packaging guidelines on the wiki and very similar to what it is in the
current release notes. David Nally tells me of an entirely different way to
deal with the .desktop file but I don't know enough to understand why it is
better.
So what I'm asking is:
1) Is this totally wrong-headed and we should be looking up another avenue
2) How can this approach be made better
3) Is there some other way
Thanks
--McD
9:19 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:57:52AM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
Let me preface this by mentioning that I haven't got a clue about
packaging,
so assuming I am a complete idiot wouldn't be inappropriate.
Eric discovered back in January that there are a couple of show stoppers to
using Publican for Docs. He thought he was going to get the issues fixed in
a short time, but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it will
happen. Eric developed a workaround by hacking Publican. Unfortunately,
using this approach would require everyone participating in Docs to have a
hacked Publican, and the hack breaks Publican for other uses. A switch
would be nice, and acceptable to the Publican developers, but apparently it
would take a lot of effort and there is only one maintainer.
Can Jeff Fearn or some other knowledgeable person explain here what's
needed for that switch? We probably can find some resources for
writing that switch, but to do that we need to know what's required.
Publican does almost everything we need to do between the wiki and
the RPM,
so we would really like to use it rather than the mish-mash of tools we
currently have.
There are two problems:
1) Publican names the package incorrectly
2) The .desktop file is handled differently than the reviewers would like
Now it seems to me, worst case we could run Publican and then package the
HTMLs manually. But since Publican already does most of the heavy lifting,
why not simply patch Publican's work after the fact.
To this end, I made an attempt to do the following:
1) Unpack the SRPM produced by Publican, The SRPM has 2 files, a tarball and
a specfile
2) Rename the tarball, which involves untarring and retarring it
3) Edit the specfile
4) rpmbuild
Publican also has a 'make tar-<LANG>' target for making just the tarball.
I wrote down the details of what I did at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jjmcd/Drafts/Converting_Publican_RPM_...
When I do this, the resulting RPM passes rpmlint, installs correctly, and
seems to meet the guidelines. What am I missing? Well, appears to install
correctly. A menu entry appears and when I click on it I see release notes.
Maybe there are less obvious things going on.
As far as the .desktop file, I don't fully understand the issue here. The
code produced by Publican appears to be almost identical to that in the
packaging guidelines on the wiki and very similar to what it is in the
current release notes. David Nally tells me of an entirely different way to
deal with the .desktop file but I don't know enough to understand why it is
better.
So what I'm asking is:
1) Is this totally wrong-headed and we should be looking up another avenue
2) How can this approach be made better
3) Is there some other way
It might be helpful to have David or someone to describe the exact
issue with the .desktop file here, or just point us to a bug where we
can read about it. I'm looking at Publican to see whether we could
add the needed stuff to /usr/share/publican/make/Makefile.fedora,
which would keep it in the Fedora brand package and away from where it
breaks other things that Red Hat might use internally.
If that ends up being a bad place to put things -- because the
Makefile.templates haven't been included yet at that point, perhaps --
then it would seem relatively easy to also have the Makefile.common
provide:
ifeq "$(BRAND_MAKE)" "1"
include $(COMMON_CONFIG)/make/Makefile.$(BRAND).post
endif
After the global templates, and we can craft those targets as needed.
I'm not completely Makefile-ignorant, fortunately, after having spent
some time working on our FDP toolchain. I'll try to help where I
can. If Jeff's willing to take a patch like that, or if he can help
me understand where's a better place to put these sorts of
customizations, I'm up for writing them. We really do not want to
have to punt this again for lack of elbow grease.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
1:36 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>
To: <fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Publican Issues for RNs
Can Jeff Fearn or some other knowledgeable person explain
Unfortunately, I don't know all the players that well. A Jeff did come on
to the phone call the other night, and I got the impression that he had
something to do with Publican. Eric had indicated that making it a switch
would require massive work, although the other night the possibility that it
might not be all that bad was raised. There was even talk of putting it
into the Fedora template but perhaps that was only wishful thinking.
Publican also has a 'make tar-<LANG>' target for making
just the tarball.
Even make srpm leaves the tar laying around, but if it is already willing to
have a shot at the spec file why not let it do that work too.
It might be helpful to have David or someone to describe the
exact issue with the .desktop file here, or just point us to a bug
Clearly I don't understand this bit at all, and that has to be the next
place to dig. Eric was the one who had his srpm refused, so perhaps if
Eric, David and myself, or perhaps someone else knowledgable can get
together we can sort it out.
I'm looking at Publican to see whether we could
add the needed stuff to /usr/share/publican/make/Makefile.fedora
Eric knows exactly what has to happen inside Publican, he just didn't know
how to make it optional.
I'm not completely Makefile-ignorant
I'm not either, but I'm hardly a maestro.
We really do not want to have to punt this again
for lack of elbow grease.
I think even worst case it isn't too bad, but the smoother we can make it
the better. Maybe that is selfish -- I want to have it easy next time ;-)
--McD
6:10 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 02:36:08PM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
From: "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>
> Can Jeff Fearn or some other knowledgeable person explain
Unfortunately, I don't know all the players that well. A Jeff did come on
to the phone call the other night, and I got the impression that he had
something to do with Publican. Eric had indicated that making it a switch
would require massive work, although the other night the possibility that
it might not be all that bad was raised. There was even talk of putting
it into the Fedora template but perhaps that was only wishful thinking.
I'm almost certain that would have been Jeff Fearn, who's the Publican
developer; he works at Red Hat in the Brisbane (BNE) office.
The more of that stuff we can get on the list, the more people we can
potentially rope into helping. I tend to think that phone calls are
great for small issues and status reports, but aren't good for bigger
ones in terms of the openness and transparency we need for awesome
teamwork.
> Publican also has a 'make tar-<LANG>' target for
making just the tarball.
Even make srpm leaves the tar laying around, but if it is already willing
to have a shot at the spec file why not let it do that work too.
> It might be helpful to have David or someone to describe the
> exact issue with the .desktop file here, or just point us to a bug
Clearly I don't understand this bit at all, and that has to be the next
place to dig. Eric was the one who had his srpm refused, so perhaps if
Eric, David and myself, or perhaps someone else knowledgable can get
together we can sort it out.
Right on, and please relay the findings here if you can.
> I'm looking at Publican to see whether we could
> add the needed stuff to /usr/share/publican/make/Makefile.fedora
Eric knows exactly what has to happen inside Publican, he just didn't know
how to make it optional.
I'm almost certain that I can make another set of templates and
provide an appropriate specfile template that would DTRT, as long as I
understand what the issues are. Then it's just a matter of finding
out whether Jeff will take the patch. My preference would be to find
a solution that can be contained entirely in the publican-fedora
package, thus minimizing any effect on the rest of the Publican
package.
> I'm not completely Makefile-ignorant
I'm not either, but I'm hardly a maestro.
Between the two of us we could probably be a genius! :-)
> We really do not want to have to punt this again
> for lack of elbow grease.
I think even worst case it isn't too bad, but the smoother we can make it
the better. Maybe that is selfish -- I want to have it easy next time ;-)
I want to have it easy *this* time because last time we said the same
thing! :-)
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
7:42 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>
To: <fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Publican Issues for RNs
The more of that stuff we can get on the list, the more
people we can potentially rope into helping. I tend to
think that phone calls are great for small issues and
status reports, but aren't good for bigger ones in
terms of the openness and transparency we need
for awesome teamwork.
I agree and I'm surprised that nobody else has joined in this coversation.
OTOH, the phone conversation did get a lot of turf covered quickly, at the
expense of limited participation and no record to go back and study.
>> It might be helpful to have David or someone to describe the
>> exact issue with the .desktop file here, or just point us to a bug
mhideo just appeared on IRC asking about bug 476471 which seems to be the
one Eric was talking about. There are a LOT of comments almost every one of
which has a link. This will take more than a minute or two to digest.
--McD
1:49 a.m.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:57:52AM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
> Let me preface this by mentioning that I haven't got a clue about packaging,
> so assuming I am a complete idiot wouldn't be inappropriate.
>
> Eric discovered back in January that there are a couple of show stoppers to
> using Publican for Docs. He thought he was going to get the issues fixed in
> a short time, but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it will
> happen. Eric developed a workaround by hacking Publican. Unfortunately,
> using this approach would require everyone participating in Docs to have a
> hacked Publican, and the hack breaks Publican for other uses. A switch
> would be nice, and acceptable to the Publican developers, but apparently it
> would take a lot of effort and there is only one maintainer.
Can Jeff Fearn or some other knowledgeable person explain here what's
needed for that switch? We probably can find some resources for
writing that switch, but to do that we need to know what's required.
I haven't looked to deeply in to it. The tar/package name structure is
use in many of the templates in the common Makefiles and testing having
two naming methods would require some pretty robust analysis.
> Publican does almost everything we need to do between the wiki
and the RPM,
> so we would really like to use it rather than the mish-mash of tools we
> currently have.
>
> There are two problems:
> 1) Publican names the package incorrectly
For values of incorrectly that are not in the published fedora package
naming guidelines AND for values of incorrectly that fail miserably to
understand the value-add that having access to multiple versions of
product documentation on your desktop offers.
Being able to review the fedora 11 release notes on fedora 10 while you
are off line is a valuable feature.
Having access to the admin guides for multiple versions of fedora on
your desktop is a valuable feature, particularly if you have to support
multiple versions of fedora. Like say a system administrator.
It only takes a little imagination to see how this benefits being able
to syndicate content to the desktop. I'm surprised the fedora docs team
aren't screaming for this feature.
> 2) The .desktop file is handled differently than the reviewers
would like
For values of like that ignore compatibility with other distros.
> Now it seems to me, worst case we could run Publican and then
package the
> HTMLs manually. But since Publican already does most of the heavy lifting,
> why not simply patch Publican's work after the fact.
>
> To this end, I made an attempt to do the following:
> 1) Unpack the SRPM produced by Publican, The SRPM has 2 files, a tarball and
> a specfile
> 2) Rename the tarball, which involves untarring and retarring it
> 3) Edit the specfile
> 4) rpmbuild
Publican also has a 'make tar-<LANG>' target for making just the tarball.
If you run make spec-<LANG> it will make the spec and the tar.
BTW fedora packaging requires you to check TAR files in to CVS to get
them built in koji, the srpm is just used for package review, after that
you have to check the spec and tar file in to CVS, tag it and build it
in koji. Much of the benefit of getting a source rpm is lost at that
point. If you can't get a number in a package name I seriously doubt you
will be allowed to push source rpms in to koji.
> I wrote down the details of what I did at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jjmcd/Drafts/Converting_Publican_RPM_...
I thought this was pretty neat, but it's probably easier just to run
make spec and use the sources in tmp/rpm.
> When I do this, the resulting RPM passes rpmlint, installs
correctly, and
> seems to meet the guidelines. What am I missing? Well, appears to install
> correctly. A menu entry appears and when I click on it I see release notes.
> Maybe there are less obvious things going on.
>
> As far as the .desktop file, I don't fully understand the issue here. The
> code produced by Publican appears to be almost identical to that in the
> packaging guidelines on the wiki and very similar to what it is in the
> current release notes. David Nally tells me of an entirely different way to
> deal with the .desktop file but I don't know enough to understand why it is
> better.
>
> So what I'm asking is:
> 1) Is this totally wrong-headed and we should be looking up another avenue
> 2) How can this approach be made better
> 3) Is there some other way
It might be helpful to have David or someone to describe the exact
issue with the .desktop file here, or just point us to a bug where we
can read about it. I'm looking at Publican to see whether we could
add the needed stuff to /usr/share/publican/make/Makefile.fedora,
which would keep it in the Fedora brand package and away from where it
breaks other things that Red Hat might use internally.
It would mean other brands being used on fedora wouldn't be usable for
fedora packages.
If that ends up being a bad place to put things -- because the
Makefile.templates haven't been included yet at that point, perhaps --
then it would seem relatively easy to also have the Makefile.common
provide:
ifeq "$(BRAND_MAKE)" "1"
include $(COMMON_CONFIG)/make/Makefile.$(BRAND).post
endif
After the global templates, and we can craft those targets as needed.
I'm not completely Makefile-ignorant, fortunately, after having spent
some time working on our FDP toolchain. I'll try to help where I
can. If Jeff's willing to take a patch like that, or if he can help
me understand where's a better place to put these sorts of
customizations, I'm up for writing them. We really do not want to
have to punt this again for lack of elbow grease.
We use the double colon for targets, e.g. foo::, so you can't over ride
them, you can only add pre/post processing to them. You could add new
targets that depend on old targets or just cut, paste and rename
existing templates, then change the behaviour.
Really though, by doing this you are removing what is, IMHO, the biggest
value-add of packaging the docs in the first place, the ability to have
a library of content at your fingertips. Huge price to pay just to get
rid of a number.
Cheers, Jeff.
7:42 a.m.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:49:42PM +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:57:52AM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
>> Let me preface this by mentioning that I haven't got a clue about packaging,
>> so assuming I am a complete idiot wouldn't be inappropriate.
>>
>> Eric discovered back in January that there are a couple of show stoppers to
>> using Publican for Docs. He thought he was going to get the issues fixed in
>> a short time, but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it will
>> happen. Eric developed a workaround by hacking Publican. Unfortunately,
>> using this approach would require everyone participating in Docs to have a
>> hacked Publican, and the hack breaks Publican for other uses. A switch
>> would be nice, and acceptable to the Publican developers, but apparently it
>> would take a lot of effort and there is only one maintainer.
>
> Can Jeff Fearn or some other knowledgeable person explain here what's
> needed for that switch? We probably can find some resources for
> writing that switch, but to do that we need to know what's required.
I haven't looked to deeply in to it. The tar/package name structure is
use in many of the templates in the common Makefiles and testing having
two naming methods would require some pretty robust analysis.
>> Publican does almost everything we need to do between the wiki and the RPM,
>> so we would really like to use it rather than the mish-mash of tools we
>> currently have.
>>
>> There are two problems:
>> 1) Publican names the package incorrectly
For values of incorrectly that are not in the published fedora package
naming guidelines AND for values of incorrectly that fail miserably to
understand the value-add that having access to multiple versions of
product documentation on your desktop offers.
Being able to review the fedora 11 release notes on fedora 10 while you
are off line is a valuable feature.
Having access to the admin guides for multiple versions of fedora on your
desktop is a valuable feature, particularly if you have to support
multiple versions of fedora. Like say a system administrator.
It only takes a little imagination to see how this benefits being able to
syndicate content to the desktop. I'm surprised the fedora docs team
aren't screaming for this feature.
Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471 , I assume.
Don't we have version names in other packages, such as in the case of
compatibility libraries? Like libsoup22, for instance? It seems to
me there's a precedent for this. Added my comment to the bug FWIW.
>> 2) The .desktop file is handled differently than the
reviewers would like
For values of like that ignore compatibility with other distros.
We could simply provide a patch or separate .desktop file, I suppose.
Typically no independent, cross-distro upstream would take a patch
that breaks other distros in favor of Fedora. At the same time,
Fedora standards are against carrying long-term patches, in favor of
working with upstream. If that's an unresolvable conflict, might be a
matter to take to the Packaging committee, if nothing else asking for
them to write an exception into the policy.
>> Now it seems to me, worst case we could run Publican and then
package the
>> HTMLs manually. But since Publican already does most of the heavy lifting,
>> why not simply patch Publican's work after the fact.
>>
>> To this end, I made an attempt to do the following:
>> 1) Unpack the SRPM produced by Publican, The SRPM has 2 files, a tarball and
>> a specfile
>> 2) Rename the tarball, which involves untarring and retarring it
>> 3) Edit the specfile
>> 4) rpmbuild
>
> Publican also has a 'make tar-<LANG>' target for making just the
tarball.
If you run make spec-<LANG> it will make the spec and the tar.
BTW fedora packaging requires you to check TAR files in to CVS to get
them built in koji, the srpm is just used for package review, after that
you have to check the spec and tar file in to CVS, tag it and build it in
koji. Much of the benefit of getting a source rpm is lost at that point.
If you can't get a number in a package name I seriously doubt you will be
allowed to push source rpms in to koji.
Right, but you can do a "cvs-import.sh <SRPM>" to do this, which I
have done repeatedly for previous fedora-release-notes packages.
However, if the built-in .spec or some contents of the .tar aren't
already in the form you want them, that's not going to be
advantageous.
>> I wrote down the details of what I did at
>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jjmcd/Drafts/Converting_Publican_RPM_...
I thought this was pretty neat, but it's probably easier just to run make
spec and use the sources in tmp/rpm.
>> When I do this, the resulting RPM passes rpmlint, installs correctly, and
>> seems to meet the guidelines. What am I missing? Well, appears to install
>> correctly. A menu entry appears and when I click on it I see release notes.
>> Maybe there are less obvious things going on.
>>
>> As far as the .desktop file, I don't fully understand the issue here. The
>> code produced by Publican appears to be almost identical to that in the
>> packaging guidelines on the wiki and very similar to what it is in the
>> current release notes. David Nally tells me of an entirely different way to
>> deal with the .desktop file but I don't know enough to understand why it is
>> better.
>>
>> So what I'm asking is:
>> 1) Is this totally wrong-headed and we should be looking up another avenue
>> 2) How can this approach be made better
>> 3) Is there some other way
>
> It might be helpful to have David or someone to describe the exact
> issue with the .desktop file here, or just point us to a bug where we
> can read about it. I'm looking at Publican to see whether we could
> add the needed stuff to /usr/share/publican/make/Makefile.fedora,
> which would keep it in the Fedora brand package and away from where it
> breaks other things that Red Hat might use internally.
It would mean other brands being used on fedora wouldn't be usable for
fedora packages.
I see your point.
> If that ends up being a bad place to put things -- because the
> Makefile.templates haven't been included yet at that point, perhaps --
> then it would seem relatively easy to also have the Makefile.common
> provide:
>
> ifeq "$(BRAND_MAKE)" "1"
> include $(COMMON_CONFIG)/make/Makefile.$(BRAND).post
> endif
>
> After the global templates, and we can craft those targets as needed.
> I'm not completely Makefile-ignorant, fortunately, after having spent
> some time working on our FDP toolchain. I'll try to help where I
> can. If Jeff's willing to take a patch like that, or if he can help
> me understand where's a better place to put these sorts of
> customizations, I'm up for writing them. We really do not want to
> have to punt this again for lack of elbow grease.
>
We use the double colon for targets, e.g. foo::, so you can't over ride
them, you can only add pre/post processing to them. You could add new
targets that depend on old targets or just cut, paste and rename existing
templates, then change the behaviour.
Really though, by doing this you are removing what is, IMHO, the biggest
value-add of packaging the docs in the first place, the ability to have a
library of content at your fingertips. Huge price to pay just to get rid
of a number.
Yeah, that's clearer to me now.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
7:40 p.m.
John J. McDonough wrote:
There are two problems:
1) Publican names the package incorrectly
Can you clearly define what the problem
is here? Please provide links to
emails or documents which support where the misnaming is occurring. As a
maintainer of one of the publican sub-packages I would really like to
know what is wrong with it so I can work towards a solution.
2) The .desktop file is handled differently than the reviewers would
like
Same here. Can you provide links to the archived emails from these
reviewers so I can assist in creating a solution to this.
7:58 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:57 AM, John J. McDonough <wb8rcr(a)arrl.net> wrote:
As far as the .desktop file, I don't fully understand the issue
here. The
code produced by Publican appears to be almost identical to that in the
packaging guidelines on the wiki and very similar to what it is in the
current release notes. David Nally tells me of an entirely different way to
deal with the .desktop file but I don't know enough to understand why it is
better.
So the spec file you guys have creates a .desktop file, but doesn't do
so in the way the packaging guidelines require that it must be done.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_...
So, I had the same problem with my first desktop package and read the
section immediately preceeding the above section and tried to create
it by hand.
From that section: (and emphasis is in the packaging guidelines, I
didn't add it):
It is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the
package, one MUST run desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate in
%install (and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils), to help ensure
.desktop file safety and spec-compliance. desktop-file-install MUST be
used if the package does not install the file or there are changes
desired to the .desktop file (such as add/removing categories, etc).
8:28 p.m.
On 03/13/2009 10:58 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> From that section: (and emphasis is in the packaging guidelines, I
didn't add it):
It is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the
package, one MUST run desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate in
%install (and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils), to help ensure
.desktop file safety and spec-compliance. desktop-file-install MUST be
used if the package does not install the file or there are changes
desired to the .desktop file (such as add/removing categories, etc).
These are real bugs, if you open a separate BZ I will fix these issues
in a timely manner.
The complaint in the original bug is that the .desktop file is embedded
in the spec file and is created when the binary rpms are built in Koji.
They want the desktop file created when the srpm is created. Doing so
breaks the desktop file for other rpm based distros, like Suse, who use
different documentation paths. Embedding the desktop file in the spec
means that at compile time we can source docdir from the build system
creating proper desktop files for the system it is being built on.
While I can understand that distros may not care if other distros break
or have to do extra work to get a proper desktop file, publican wants to
work on these other distros, so the extra work will have to be done by
the distro requesting the breaking change.
Cheers, Jeff.
5529
days inactive
5530
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Chris Curran -
David Nalley -
Jeff Fearn -
John J. McDonough -
Paul W. Frields