[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Java Naming Page

Le vendredi 14 juillet 2006 à 12:22 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
> On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 20:21 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> > Instead of screaming "they're not following the holy guidelines" please
> > spent 5s thinking about what the guidelines are about (solve technical
> > problems).
> > 
> I agree.  I'm not yet convinced that _they're_ solving a problem,
> though.

> > I'd have thought the somewhat irritated intervention of Paul Nasrat 
> Err Paul Nasrat?  Which post, which list?  (If you meant fnasser, then I
> know what you're talking about.)

I though Paul had written something yesterday, but there's so many
messages on this thread on multiple lists I'm too lazy to check it.
Let's say Fernando then.

> > and
> > all the posts about technicalities vs æsthetics would have make all this
> > clean.
> > 
> If interleaving is not a goal, then I don't see a reason to change the
> guidelines.

Then ask Fernando if he needs interleaving. 

> > (and BTW these people don't _need_ the guidelines, they were doing
> > inter-repo multi-package-updater updates when Fedora Core was still
> > thinking "the next anaconda run will clean it all")
> _We_ need the guidelines.  Look at the proliferation of ways that
> snapshot dates are added to the release field in jpackage.  Now imagine
> how many new packagers and package reviewers are going to build packages
> that break the upgrade path if we allow all of that into naming.

Sure; JPackage releases use lots of "dangerous" constructs because they
have experienced packages who won't abuse them to the point things
break, but this is not the case in Extras. So it's be probably safer is
JPP changed its own releases to pure FC conventions (I mean upstream
release before they're stacked and interleaved at Fedora). But you need
to realise it's a lot of work for them with zero technical benefit, and
there are many nicer ways to ask than make them some sort of scapegoat

> It's also bad for a reviewer when we have two different sets of
> guidelines for naming.  If this is a JPackage derived package, you have
> to check that NEVR fits into the JPackage rules for naming followed by a
> proper Fedora Named tag.  Otherwise use the Fedora Naming Guidelines to
> decide if NEVR is correct.

In this particular case it's more release = jpp release + fedora
release, but Fedora has clearly a voice on what jpp release is, if only
via all the fc packagers which are also jpp members.

However when the fedora jpp members explain to their mandrake or suse
friends what changes need to be made, they need better arguments than

> Or do we just assume that jpackage has always caught bad naming?  So
> we're left holding the bag when something goes wrong?
> (cryptix-asn1-20011119)

I think this one is already fixed in JPP 1.7 and 5.0.
But anyway: no you're not left holding the bag, you report the problem
either to the fedora java team or directly to jpp, and as responsible
maintainers they'll fix up their stuff.

They're not packager newbies you need to herd through draconian rules,
and they'll react better to a technical analysis than to a "just do it,
we don"t need to explain" (been hurt before by the fedora.us epoch
policy changes for example)


Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]