pertusus at free.fr
Wed Oct 15 08:10:45 UTC 2008
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 01:19:15AM -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:50 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 01:16 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > > I would like to make some progress on this:
> > >
> > > <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoConf>
> > >
> > > The goal, I think, is incorporation of something like this into Fedora's
> > > Packaging Guidelines. I'm told this is the place to come.
> > This is the right place... do you feel that Draft is ready for us to
> > consider it for inclusion in the Packaging Guidelines as is?
> After some discussion on fedora-devel, I'd say "not yet".
> While I do think it's appropriate to steer packagers toward patching
> configure and Makefile.in for trivial cases, I'm coming around to the
> notion that for more complex cases the prose should restrict itself to
> being informational. But I continue to think that certain invocations
I think that it would be very nice if you could summary the whole
with a (controversial) in the title.
I personnally think that this kind of complicate recommendation should
not be in the guideline in any case, the guidelines are already too big,
but it should definitively be somewhere such that one has just to point
to the text when doing reviews.
More information about the Fedora-packaging