On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:07:23 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:16:41 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
>
> > > I'd like to request the following packaging policy:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > If a packager uses something with the same effect than
> > >
> > > %define debug_package %{nil}
> > >
> > > which disables the automatically built "debuginfo" package, the
spec file
> > > MUST contain a comment that explains why this is done.
> >
> > This goes without saying. Infact why be so specific? The rule should
> > be that if anything is done that is out of the ordinary a comment must
> > be added that explains why.
>
> What is "anything that is out of the ordinary"? Where does it start?
> Where does it stop? You could call some BuildRequires "out of the
> ordinary", too, but a packager might consider them as ordinary.
It's very simple. You use your own judgement. When in doubt, add a
comment. If there is ever any disagreement between packager and
reviewer, the default is to add a comment.
??? Then something in our process is broken, because there are spec files
used in Extras where debuginfo packages are disabled _without_ a comment.
Further, we don't apply any formal post-approval reviewing (or QA), so
policies (or guidelines) for the post-approval life-time of a package are
needed. These are the same than during review, at least. But they don't
cover debuginfo packages yet.
I'm talking about _enforcing_ an explanatory comment in the spec file.