Hello,
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
-- Pat
On Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 15:47, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
+1 I'm not sure if the new name is informative enough, but I don't have any better alternatives right now.
Regards, R.
On Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 16:07, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 15:47, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
+1 I'm not sure if the new name is informative enough, but I don't have any better alternatives right now.
I have one now: README.package.
Regards, R.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:38:21AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
I have one now: README.package.
Agreed, I also think that it is the best one. I have updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_...
(and I have explicitely stated that it is controversial).
-- Pat
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 00:41 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:38:21AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
I have one now: README.package.
Agreed, I also think that it is the best one. I have updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_...
(and I have explicitely stated that it is controversial).
I don't think it's controversial. You (or whoever wrote this) made it controversial.
Do you really think. users finding a README.Fedora are not able to bring such a README into the appropriate context e.g. on EPEL or on RHEL?
Pedantic packagers could rename such a file (as part of their rpm.specs) for EPEL or when adopting a package into RHEL. I for one, don't see much reason to do so.
Ralf
Patrice Dumas wrote, at 10/25/2008 10:47 PM +9:00:
Hello,
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
But README.fedora may be _really_ Fedora specific issue (e.g. for better performance another files are needed but packaging them altogether cannot be done due to Fedora policy, as you and I wrote on xtide-common package)
Mamoru
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:11:31PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
Patrice Dumas wrote, at 10/25/2008 10:47 PM +9:00:
Hello,
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
But README.fedora may be _really_ Fedora specific issue (e.g. for better performance another files are needed but packaging them altogether cannot be done due to Fedora policy, as you and I wrote on xtide-common package)
These are not really fedora specific. If I was to review xtide I would have insisted on this file being called xtide-README.dist. For example it is also true for EPEL. And it is also certainly true for any free software distribution. So I think that this is a bug in xtide.
Would you accept patches to correct this?
-- Pat
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 16:22 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
These are not really fedora specific. If I was to review xtide I would have insisted on this file being called xtide-README.dist. For example it is also true for EPEL. And it is also certainly true for any free software distribution. So I think that this is a bug in xtide.
To me README.dist is too generic - it sounds like it's from upstream. README.Fedora clearly tells you that the file is Fedora-specific.
Isn't EPEL also part of Fedora? I don't find anything wrong with using Fedora in EPEL packages. Or, if README.Fedora seems illogical to you to use in EPEL, make conditionals in the spec file so that the file is README.Fedora in Fedora and README.EPEL in EPEL.
Of course, if you want to use the same package in other RPM-based distributions than Fedora/EPEL, then the Fedora suffix is out of the question.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 05:41:23PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 16:22 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
These are not really fedora specific. If I was to review xtide I would have insisted on this file being called xtide-README.dist. For example it is also true for EPEL. And it is also certainly true for any free software distribution. So I think that this is a bug in xtide.
To me README.dist is too generic - it sounds like it's from upstream. README.Fedora clearly tells you that the file is Fedora-specific.
But in general those files are not fedora specific.
That being said I'd have no problem with a file named something else than README.dist or README.distribution that convey the idea that it is added by the distributor, and not upstream. What do you propose?
Isn't EPEL also part of Fedora? I don't find anything wrong with using Fedora in EPEL packages.
It is confusing at best.
Or, if README.Fedora seems illogical to you to use in EPEL, make conditionals in the spec file so that the file is README.Fedora in Fedora and README.EPEL in EPEL.
That's much too complicated, especially when the file is not really fedora specific as it is the case in all the cases I have seen.
Of course, if you want to use the same package in other RPM-based distributions than Fedora/EPEL, then the Fedora suffix is out of the question.
It is not really the issue here. The point is that these files are in general not fedora specific, it is not about the intention, but about the status of the file.
-- Pat
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:11:31PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
But README.fedora may be _really_ Fedora specific issue (e.g. for better performance another files are needed but packaging them altogether cannot be done due to Fedora policy, as you and I wrote on xtide-common package)
It may happen, to have something really fedora specific, and not specific of a rpm distribution, but I think that this only happens for a tiny number of packages. In fact I have never seen this case in real life. So it seem to me that the guidelines should address the most common case which is README.Dist.
-- Pat
Patrice Dumas wrote, at 10/25/2008 11:25 PM +9:00:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:11:31PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
But README.fedora may be _really_ Fedora specific issue (e.g. for better performance another files are needed but packaging them altogether cannot be done due to Fedora policy, as you and I wrote on xtide-common package)
It may happen, to have something really fedora specific, and not specific of a rpm distribution,
I don't care about other distrubution than Fedora. Well, the file named "README.Fedora" I wrote is really what I meant for Fedora. I don't want to take any responsibility for other distrubution.
The maintainers on other distribution may want to reuse what I wrote for Fedora, but in such case the maintainer (of other distrubution) must mention: ------------------------------------------------------- The notes Fedora maintainer writes are also applied to the package distributed on this distrubition, so I bollowed the notes.
If you see something wrong on this notes please ask "me", not Fedora maintainer. -------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think generally the package maintainer on a distrubution must write the notes for the distrubution (if any) by his/her responsibility.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:54:54AM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
I don't care about other distrubution than Fedora. Well, the file named "README.Fedora" I wrote is really what I meant for Fedora. I don't want to take any responsibility for other distrubution.
It is not about taking responsibility or not. It is about the change being fedora specific or not. If you look at the xtide package, what is in th eREADME.Fedora is not specific of fedora. It is specific of the package, sure, but not of fedora.
The maintainers on other distribution may want to reuse what I wrote for Fedora, but in such case the maintainer (of other distrubution) must mention:
The notes Fedora maintainer writes are also applied to the package distributed on this distrubition, so I bollowed the notes.
If you see something wrong on this notes please ask "me", not Fedora maintainer.
=Only if the license say so, and it currently doesn't.
Well, I think generally the package maintainer on a distrubution must write the notes for the distrubution (if any) by his/her responsibility.
Right, but, in the xtide case, and it is true of all the case I have come accross, the notes have nothing fedora specific (apart from the bugzilla adress, and it is in any case not the right place to tell where fedora bugzilla is). They are linked with how the package is done, but have nothing fedora specific, really.
-- Pat
On 25.10.2008 15:47, Patrice Dumas wrote:
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
I really appreciate the general idea, but I don't like the term ".Dist" to much, as it is a bit misleading imho: some people might think that file might contain "informations relevant for distribution of the package".
I thought about a alternative, but all my mind came up with was "distribution-specific-notes" -- that has the same problem as noted above, but it's imho not that worse. But that filename is quite long :-/
Maybe somebody else comes up with something that is shorter and more accurate...
CU knurd
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:53:42 +0200 Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 25.10.2008 15:47, Patrice Dumas wrote:
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
I really appreciate the general idea, but I don't like the term ".Dist" to much, as it is a bit misleading imho: some people might think that file might contain "informations relevant for distribution of the package".
I thought about a alternative, but all my mind came up with was "distribution-specific-notes" -- that has the same problem as noted above, but it's imho not that worse. But that filename is quite long :-/
Maybe somebody else comes up with something that is shorter and more accurate...
I tend to use "README.RPM" or some variant thereof (e.g. README-SELinux.RPM).
Paul.
On Saturday 25 October 2008, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:53:42 +0200 Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
I really appreciate the general idea, but I don't like the term ".Dist" to much, as it is a bit misleading imho: some people might think that file might contain "informations relevant for distribution of the package".
I thought about a alternative, but all my mind came up with was "distribution-specific-notes" -- that has the same problem as noted above, but it's imho not that worse. But that filename is quite long :-/
Maybe somebody else comes up with something that is shorter and more accurate...
I tend to use "README.RPM" or some variant thereof (e.g. README-SELinux.RPM).
.RPM sounds a bit like it could be a rpm package whose name is README. I've usually used README.package myself.
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 15:47 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
-1
Leave such implementation details to the packager's discretion.
Ralf
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:31:34PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 15:47 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
-1
Leave such implementation details to the packager's discretion.
It is only a (controversial) recommendation and I never wanted to make it a guideline. But in most of the case the file is not fedora specific, it is pâckage specific so I think it should be reflected in the name.
-- Pat
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 00:20 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:31:34PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 15:47 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
-1
Leave such implementation details to the packager's discretion.
It is only a (controversial) recommendation and I never wanted to make it a guideline. But in most of the case the file is not fedora specific,
In many cases such READMEs are not distro-specific, either.
it is pâckage specific so I think it should be reflected in the name.
Well, I find README.Dist or README.rpm to be more confusing than helpful.
I prefer README.fedora, README.Fedora or README.first.
Ralf
Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 à 05:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
it is pâckage specific so I think it should be reflected in the name.
Well, I find README.Dist or README.rpm to be more confusing than helpful.
I prefer README.fedora, README.Fedora or README.first.
In the interest of helping users that just want to double-click on the thing to read it, I prefer whatever.txt.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:21:22PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"PD" == Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr writes:
PD> I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist
I disagree. README.Fedora is a fine name, and is what I always recommend in review.
Are these files really fedora specific, or package specific? In most cases they are package specific, so I think the file name should reflect that, and also it helps others (or EPEL) reuse spec files.
-- Pat
"PD" == Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr writes:
PD> Are these files really fedora specific, or package specific?
In the case of my packages, or packages where I have recommended the use of README.Fedora, they indicate specific information on how Fedora has provided default configurations and any Fedora-specific setup necessary (such as indicating that a web application has installed an apache config file restricting access to localhost until default passwords are changed).
PD> In most cases they are package specific, so I think the file name PD> should reflect that, and also it helps others (or EPEL) reuse spec PD> files.
EPEL is a Fedora product, is it not? If someone wants to lift a Fedora package and has concerns about such files appearing in it, they are welcome to rename them. That's not my business, though.
If someone wants to propose a standard macro which expands to "Fedora", "EPEL" or whatever a hypothetical Fedora-consuming distro might wish, then I would happily use it.
- J<
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:12:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"PD" == Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr writes:
PD> Are these files really fedora specific, or package specific?
In the case of my packages, or packages where I have recommended the use of README.Fedora, they indicate specific information on how Fedora has provided default configurations and any Fedora-specific setup necessary (such as indicating that a web application has installed an apache config file restricting access to localhost until default passwords are changed).
But is it fedora specific, or specific to the setup of the package? In most case it is linked with how the package is done, but not to fedora, otherwise said doesn't use any of the fedora specificities. Your example doesn't seems to use anything fedora specific.
-- Pat
"PD" == Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr writes:
PD> But is it fedora specific, or specific to the setup of the PD> package?
Now you're just being obtuse. I wrote the package _for_ Fedora. It's a Fedora package. The information is specific to the default configuration of the package in Fedora. The apache configuration file in my example doesn't come from upstream; it is part of the Fedora package. README.Fedora is an entirely appropriate name for a file explaining that.
- J<
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:43:28AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"PD" == Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr writes:
PD> But is it fedora specific, or specific to the setup of the PD> package?
Now you're just being obtuse. I wrote the package _for_ Fedora. It's
That's exactly my point. It is written for fedora, but is not specific of fedora. That's why I think it is better to avoid using fedora, but instead use a word, both more neutral and more appropriate, like package.
a Fedora package. The information is specific to the default configuration of the package in Fedora. The apache configuration file in my example doesn't come from upstream; it is part of the Fedora package. README.Fedora is an entirely appropriate name for a file explaining that.
It is appropriate, but README.package seems more appropriate to me, since it is part of the package and it allows to reuse it in other contexts without having to rename anything (reuse in EPEL, in 3rd party repo, for local builds and local repository or 'private' repositories accessible on the web...).
-- Pat
On 26.10.2008 17:44, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:43:28AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> "PD" == Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr writes:
PD> But is it fedora specific, or specific to the setup of the PD> package? Now you're just being obtuse. I wrote the package _for_ Fedora. It's
That's exactly my point. It is written for fedora, but is not specific of fedora. That's why I think it is better to avoid using fedora, but instead use a word, both more neutral and more appropriate, like package.
+1 -- especially with the remixes on the horizon it will get confusing if you have "README.Fedora" on a dist called "Foobar" (which is a remix of Fedora; but the user might not know that)
a Fedora package. The information is specific to the default configuration of the package in Fedora. The apache configuration file in my example doesn't come from upstream; it is part of the Fedora package. README.Fedora is an entirely appropriate name for a file explaining that.
It is appropriate, but README.package seems more appropriate to me, since it is part of the package and it allows to reuse it in other contexts without having to rename anything (reuse in EPEL, in 3rd party repo, for local builds and local repository or 'private' repositories accessible on the web...).
+1
And Patrice, thanks again for your work driving this issue forward; I really appreciate it as I really think it makes a whole lot of sense to have a common name scheme. There are often compromises that need to be made during packaging that are ideally explained somewhere (like for example dropping support for mp3); if we use a common name scheme for files that explain these issues then we can just add something like "some package contain additional notes for Fedora specific qualities; those are explained in a file README.package that is shipped together with the docs of each package". Well, not exactly that text, but something like that -- you'll get the idea ;-)
Cu knurd
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:47:55PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
Urgghh ... a lot of pointless make-work. What's the point? Debian ship 'README.Debian' files.
Rich.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:22:04PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:47:55PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
Urgghh ... a lot of pointless make-work. What's the point? Debian ship 'README.Debian' files.
It is not an obligation it is a recommendation. And it is in general both more accurate and help others reuse spec files. There are many packages using README.Fedora in fedora, and what debian does is not necessarily to be copied.
-- Pat
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:47:55PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
In http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an argumentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_u...
Let's forget about that idea, I thought it was less controversial than it turned out to be.
-- Pat
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:47:55PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
I have read some (about 30) of the 93 files in fedora packages named *README*edora*. Some can be considered fedora specific (for example those that states that the documentation cannot be installed since it would conflict with another package), but many are not fedora specific, but mostly explaination of how the package is different from upstream or post-install informations.
In some cases, the bugzilla address or the maintainer address is included in an otherwise not fedora specific package. I think that it is wrong, bugzilla and maintainer name should not be communicated in each package, but globally.
-- Pat
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jussi Lehtola -
Mamoru Tasaka -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Patrice Dumas -
Paul Howarth -
Ralf Corsepius -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Ville Skyttä