[Fedora-packaging] Drafts for next Tuesday
rc040203 at freenet.de
Thu Mar 20 05:22:39 UTC 2008
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 18:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> This goes out specifically to the Fedora Packaging Committee Members,
> but is certainly open for comments from all.
> We've got a lot of drafts that are queued up for next Tuesday's meeting,
> so it would be very helpful if you read them all well in advance:
Due to the fact, I'll likely not be able to attend on Tuesday,
preliminary comments/answers/votes interspersed.
> ASCII Naming Guidelines (spot) :
Already replied in a separate mail.
> Perl Guidelines (spot) :
Generally OK, but I am missing a section on perl subdirectory directory
My vote: 0 without such a section, +1 with such a section.
Also, I do not agree upon the section on "Makefile.PL vs. Build.PL",
but ... this is nothing new. I would prefer leaving the choice to the
maintainer and not to explicitly recommend Build.PL.
> InitDir location (spot) :
0, I don't understand what this draft is trying to say and which
problems it is trying to solve. Could you explain?
> Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) :
0, no opinion on this.
> OpenOffice.org extensions guidelines (Caolan McNamara) :
OK for FC > 9, not OK for FC < 9
The unopkg concerns still apply
- /usr/bin/unopkg is not available for FC < 9
Updating the FC8/7 packages to provide them won't help, because users
might not have "updates" installed.
- Also, I am not sure if /usr/bin is the appropriate location to install
unopkg. /usr/sbin/ might be more appropriate.
> Secure BuildRoot (Lubomir Kundrak) :
OK as a recommendation for Fedora < 10, but should not be made mandatory
before Fedora 10 (or even later), IMO.
Should this proposal be accepted, rel-eng should implement it into all
packages during a mass-rebuild, may-be accompanied with rpm's upstream
implementing it as "default buildroot" into (FC10's) rpm.
> Register VirtualProvides (Patrice Dumas) :
Not clear enough. Many packages apply virtual provides not covered by
these lists (e.g. alternate package names, obsoletes/provides, legacy
provides etc.) This proposal doesn't specify which class of virtual
provides it is aiming at.
> SysV-style Initscript Guidelines (spot) :
+1, Seems OK to me.
> I don't have the Java Guidelines draft on the list yet, but I hope that
> it will be ready by next Tuesday:
0, for now, no opinion on that. I don't see any obvious mistake/flaw,
but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on java to be able to comment on
More information about the Fedora-packaging