[Fedora-packaging] I wish to package some CC licensed content ...

[Patrice Dumas]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 06:08:30AM -0600, steve at lonetwin.net wrote:
>> If it's under /usr, it'd really have to be somewhere in %{_datadir},
>> i.e. /usr/share. And given that Fedora does not even use /opt, it's
>> hard to see it going somewhere else. Although perhaps
>> /usr/share/fedora-cc/{books,music,video,...} is less scattered than
>> /usr/share/{books,music,video,...}.
>
> I like this idea and I was thinking along the same lines. In addition to 
> this, I was thinking about making the rpms relocatable, so that if a user 
> prefers, the rpm could be installed under  
> ~/fedora-cc/{books,music,video,...}[2] ...etc.

I don't know if this level of detail is wanted right now, but using 
fedora-cc is not a good idea, in my opinion, it should be something more
neutral, that can be also used in other distros, or become part of the 
FHS, so something along

%{_datadir}/content/{books,music,video,...}

About relocatable packages, I don't think this is very important. Pure
content packages will be relocatable, sure, but I don't think this should be
a goal.

>> One consideration would be to have a fedora-cc-menus similar to
>> games-menus, that would make sure any contents appear in a reasonable
>> place in a user's applications menu.
>
> This is a good idea too ! Thanks !

I don't think such thing should be done outside of Fedora, I mean, all the
guidelines for content only packages should also be Fedora guidelines.

So this is a more general issue of having a specific menu for content,
which is, in my opinion, of relevance for fedora and even for freedesktop.

> Anyway, here is what I plan on doing:
> - Create a set of packaging guidelines for myself, so that i am  
> consistent in creating the specs

I think that you should really use the Fedora guidelines, and help enhancing
Fedora guidelines for content that is acceptable in Fedora (like computer
related books, for example, or videos, that are tied enough with Fedora or 
linux). And then you would use those guidelines for this repo (this doesn't 
preclude making a document that only holds the guidelines relevant for 
content that should be much simpler).

> - Explore the possibilities offered by yum (yum plugins ??) to be able to:
>     + customize the install location of the content
>     + pay attention to the 'Group' header for group installations,  
> instead of needing a comps.xml

I don't think this should be a specific goal of the project.

> - Create some rpms, buy a domain name (any suggestions ??), set up the  
> repo and announce a beta :) !

Still in my opinion, I think it would be better first to submit to Fedora
content only packages that are acceptable in Fedora. And when the guidelines
are fleshed out, do your own repo. It sure can be done in parallel, if some
guidelines cannot be tested in Fedora anyway.

> - These might be totally crazy ...they are just idle thoughts as of now:
>     + Explore if rpm allows for customization of headers, so that we may 
> better describe the content
>     + Understand the rpm format so that we can build rpms by just slapping a
>     rpm header to a (cpio ??) archive instead of ^building^ (ie: going through
>     the motions of %prep, %build, %install ..etc) an rpm.

I don't think you should do that, at least not in a near future. Setting up
the repo with classical rpmbuild should be enough (and should be simpler than
setting up a normal build system since all the rpms should be noarch).

> PS: like i mentioned in my previous post, if people here think this  
> discussion is off-topic, we can move it someplace else.

I think that this is on-topic, and that guidelines for content could be of use
in fedora.

> [1] Just these rpms actually:
> Advanced Linux Programming - alp-1.0-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
> Code Listings from Advanced Linux Programming -  
> alp-listings-1.0-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
> Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition - ldd3-pdf-3-1.noarch.rpm

I think that those may be in fedora proper, but I am not sure. Maybe somebody
more knowledgable of the code vs content issue could say.

> [2] I am not quite sure whether we can call it fedora-cc if it is not  
> fedora endorsed. Also, since this content is not tied down to any  
> distro, methinks the rpm can be installed on any rpm based distro, using 
> any package manager.

As I said above, something more neutral, like 'content', would be much more 
apropriate. I don't think that the license nor the distribution name is 
of relevance here.

--
Pat