As a followup to FESCo ticket 346 (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/346), FESCo would like the Fedora Packaging Committee to draft a guideline against dependencies on redhat-lsb (and its potential subpackages). The idea is that appllications in Fedora should be packaged to use the Fedora native tools, not their LSB equivalents.
Thanks in advance, Bill, on behalf of FESCo
Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com writes:
As a followup to FESCo ticket 346 (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/346), FESCo would like the Fedora Packaging Committee to draft a guideline against dependencies on redhat-lsb
Why not remove redhab-lsb completely from Fedora? It seems to be unmaintained and critical bugs stay forever. Keeping it in current state would give people who search for an LSB compliant distribution a wrong impression.
Enrico
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:51:25PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
As a followup to FESCo ticket 346 (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/346), FESCo would like the Fedora Packaging Committee to draft a guideline against dependencies on redhat-lsb (and its potential subpackages). The idea is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that appllications in Fedora should be packaged to use the Fedora native tools, not their LSB equivalents.
I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09" that it would also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been made more granular.
Regards Till
On 03/16/2010 06:07 PM, Till Maas wrote:
I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09" that it would also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been made more granular.
Given that the purpose of that package was really twofold:
1. To ensure that all the dependencies for an LSB certified system were in place (which is why it depends on half the repository)
2. To provide the LSB functions and scripts
We could simply divide it into:
lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts) lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the naming scheme.
Thoughts?
~spot
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
Given that the purpose of that package was really twofold:
- To ensure that all the dependencies for an LSB certified system were
in place (which is why it depends on half the repository)
- To provide the LSB functions and scripts
We could simply divide it into:
lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts) lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the naming scheme.
+1
-sv
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 03/16/2010 06:07 PM, Till Maas wrote:
I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09" that it would also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been made more granular.
Given that the purpose of that package was really twofold:
- To ensure that all the dependencies for an LSB certified system were
in place (which is why it depends on half the repository)
- To provide the LSB functions and scripts
We could simply divide it into:
lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts) lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the naming scheme.
Thoughts?
~spot
packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
+1
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:11 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts) lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the naming scheme.
Thoughts?
Would you then be making lsb-scripts require lsb-cert? Or would you break that so that you can have lsb-scripts without the cert?
On 03/17/2010 11:45 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:11 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts) lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the naming scheme.
Thoughts?
Would you then be making lsb-scripts require lsb-cert? Or would you break that so that you can have lsb-scripts without the cert?
Yeah, the intent is so that lsb-scripts no longer requires the whole pile of lsb-cert Requires.
~spot
Till Maas opensource@till.name writes:
I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09" that it would also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been made more granular.
package has been split in F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=151092
'lsb-core-noarch' does not have x11 or cups dependencies anymore.
Enrico
It may be better to draft a guideline against dependencies on redhat-lsb. In my opinion the purpose of redhat-lib is just making fedora an LSB compliant distribution that proprietary softwares such as opera, adobe reader can run in fedora or other LSB compliant distributions with system-wide dynamic libs instead of linking static libs. No packages in official fedora repo really need reqiure lsb package.
Regard, Chen Lei
On 2010-03-17 06:07:36，"Till Maas" opensource@till.name wrote：
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:51:25PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
As a followup to FESCo ticket 346 (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/346), FESCo would like the Fedora Packaging Committee to draft a guideline against dependencies on redhat-lsb (and its potential subpackages). The idea is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^that appllications in Fedora should be packaged to use the Fedora native tools, not their LSB equivalents.
I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09" that it would also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been made more granular.
Regards Till
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bill Nottingham -
Chen Lei -
Enrico Scholz -
Jesse Keating -
Jon Ciesla -
Seth Vidal -
Till Maas -
Tom Callaway