packaging April 2008

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

29 participants
17 discussions

forbid fedora or redhat in spec files?
by Patrice Dumas 15 Apr '08

15 Apr '08

Hello, I have seen people saying that we should avoid using 'fedora' and 'redhat' in spec files, to help reusing in other contexts (be it, selfishly, EPEL/RHEL/OLPC, or other distros or upstreams). I think it is a good idea, especially since there is a trademark on fedora and redhat (unless I am wrong). Should we have a guideline about that? Or on a 'trick' page? -- Pat

8 9

updated ProvidesList proposal
by Patrice Dumas 13 Apr '08

13 Apr '08

Hello, I have added a rationale and removed a confusing text on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesList Please comment and modify. -- Pat

1 0

Suggestion: require inclusion of cvs location in completed review request
by Development discussions related to Fedora 08 Apr '08

08 Apr '08

Hi all, I am keen to get the packaging process modified to include a final item after ACCEPTED and CVS action done. This is simply to require the submitter to make a final entry into the review request that indicates the URL to the spec file on the fedora cvs server {or any future package source repo}. Preferably via the web interface viewcvs. While some people think that the package submission, review, maintenance can be burdensome, I think this would be an improvement to assist learning packagers in seeing what the final completed .spec looks like. At the moment, many .spec URLs that are hosted outside Fedora are taken down the moment or shortly after the process is complete. Hence it makes it difficult to learn from the efforts of others in a package review in Fedora because the .spec is no longer linked in the spec/SRPM urls provided by the submitter. The second issue is that browsing the cvs server is quite slow - mainly at the point where the "folder" has the complete list of {3000} package folders. This means we could immediately click through to the correct folder in the cvs server, rather than trawling from the top level. Any comments, rejections to this idea ? In the meantime, if you think it is a good idea, it would be appreciated for others to do this in any case - if that is allowed ? === Another idea along these lines would be to have a staging CVS server that the reviewer would be required to commit the original and changes to the spec under development. This could then be committed to the real cvs server after acceptance. The submitter would still put his srpms on his own url, not in the staging cvs server. This would make it simpler to get a live diff on what the submitter's changes have been, rather than viewing the spec as a whole and trying to find the changes. DaveT.

6 8

Packaging/SysVInitScript wiki page has wrong description for LSB header Required-Stop:
by Paul Howarth 07 Apr '08

07 Apr '08

There's a rather big error in the wiki description of the LSB "Required-Stop:" header. The wiki says: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript "The # Required-Stop: line in the LSB Header lists any boot facilities which must be stopped before shutdown of this service can commence." The LSB says: http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.0.0/LSB-Core/LSB-Core/initscrcomcon… "... the "Required-Stop:" header defines which facilities shall still be available during the shutdown of that service. Hence, the init script system should avoid stopping shell scripts which provide those facilities until this shell script is stopped." This is just about the opposite of what the wiki ways. I think a sane rule of thumb is that the parameters needed for "Required-Stop:" are likely to be the same as for "Required-Start:". The description of the "Should-Stop:" header is similarly wrong. Paul.

2 1

My comments about the Java packaging guidelines draft
by Ville Skyttä 06 Apr '08

06 Apr '08

There seems to have been some misunderstanding about for whom I spoke for when making comments about the Java guidelines even though I believe it should be pretty clear, and I was asked by Nicolas to make this statement in public, so FWIW: I spoke for myself (not for the JPackage project) thinking what I believe is best for Fedora. That also happens to be what I think would be best for JPackage, but for various reasons it's been quite a while since I've been active in JPackage or even using their deliverables, so I haven't tried pushing anything on their side for a long time nor am I up to date about JPackage's current consensus or future plans.

1 0

Let's discuss... Javascript!
by Toshio Kuratomi 02 Apr '08

02 Apr '08

This has been kicking around in my head for a while but I haven't been able to come to a conclusion on my own. As we start to ship more web apps and more web frameworks we are shipping more javascript files. Some of these files are not app specific but libraries of code that have their own upstream releases. This raises questions about whether we should be packaging these libraries separate from the applications. I've written up some thoughts about the pros and cons of this here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Javascript If discussion here leads me to the conclusion that we do want to treat javascript libraries like other libraries in the system, I'll formalize that into something appropriate for the Guidelines. -Toshio

2 2

Meeting Reminder: April 1, 2008
by Tom Callaway 01 Apr '08

01 Apr '08

Just a reminder to FPC members: We will meet tomorrow, April 1, 2008 to try to work through more of the pending drafts. Sadly, this is not an April Fools joke. Thanks, ~spot

4 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging April 2008