[Fedora-packaging] Re: one big SRPM for lots of different stardict dictionaries?

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Jun 26 11:31:34 UTC 2007

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:19:19PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 26.06.2007 12:53, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:33:00AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > [...]
> > Maybe we should allow template reviews, e.g. the submitter lists 5
> > packages that are almost identical but the explicit locale definition
> > and get's a blanket-like approval granted of any further packages he
> > will copy off this template. [...]
> I don't think a "blanket-like approval" makes sense, as at least the
> md5sums and the license actually still should be checked by a reviewer.
> Further: the reviewer of course can (and IMHO should) just do those two
> checks, run a "diff -u" of the approved spec file against the unapproved
> one, take a quick look at the differences and then approved the second
> package if everything looks sane. That can likely be done in less then 5
> minutes and is not that much work.

But you assume a zero-second lead-time to finding a reviewer at the
first place. If there is a new language package in two weeks or two
months do you really think that a reviewer will come immediately to
the attention of this new package?

Also we don't recheck md5sums and license changes on each package
update, because we started to trust the maintainer, why should we put
up the burden for doing so here, when we are semantically only
splitting the srpms?  These are the reasons that people prefer to keep
stuff like that conglomerated in one big chunk instead of going
through loops for every new subpackage.

Anyway this was just a suggestion on how to deal with that to make
maintainers' life *easy* on our requests to have fine grained srpms
w/o compromizing anything (you didn't have license checks and md5sum
checks on "growing" srpms before either). The less burocratic/painful
you make it the more people will agree to it.

BTW this is not an FPC issue to decide anyway, the guidelines would
not change, it would be fesco that would consider adding template
reviews or not.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070626/1957bfe6/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list