[Fedora-packaging] Re: Common Voicedata Packaging Guidelines

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Sep 15 15:41:43 UTC 2009

CC'ing fedora-packaging since there's no need for us to just talk about
these things between ourselves.

On 09/10/2009 12:44 AM, Ding-Yi Chen wrote:
> 於 三,2009-09-09 於 11:10 -0700,Toshio Kuratomi 提到:
>> Greetings,
>> I'm one of the other members of the Fedora Packaging Committee and we
>> had some more questions about CommonVoiceData:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CommonVoiceData
>> 1) Who uses the data? (answered:  just gcin)
>> 2) Who uses the db?
>> 3) Do we need a standard for this or is it just going to be used by
> gcin?
> If that data is only for gcin, I would have just contacted gcin's
> maintainer and include it as a sub-package of gcin.
> I do plan use the voice data with ibus and couple of others.
> I also plan to pack other voice data, such as :
> 1. Ekho http://e-guidedog.sourceforge.net/ekho.php
> 2. http://espeak.sourceforge.net/
> Hmm, do you mean that there must be sufficient amount of relative
> packages to push this proposal? I can pack those voice-data, if that is
> mandatory.
There does not need to be a large amount of voice data packages.

I'm mainly wondering what is happening with the db.  If there are
several packages that use the db, then it seems like there needs to be
some coordination among those projects to do so.

>> 4) If a standard, who would be best to make a standard for this stuff?
>> 4b) If no idea, do you think freedesktop would be a common meeting
>> ground for the participants?
> I haven't though that way. I would gladly move the issue to freedeskop
> if discussing there is more appreciate.  
It may be.  Usually the Fedora Guidelines are written to tell packagers
how to deal with a standard that originated elsewhere (FHS, .desktop
file handling, etc).

If we're just talking about where on the filesystem the data files shold
be placed and how the packages should be named, then Fedora Guidelines
can cover it immediately (via the FHS and package naming being a
distro-specific standard).  It's the usage of the database that seems a
bit odd to be originating in Fedora rather than some distro-agnostic,
upstream location.

>> 5) If not a standard, what does gcin do with this db?
> It is merely an example usage for the voice data.
So -- what's the plan for using the db?

>> Implementation
>> 1) What package owns the db on the filesystem?
> Actually the package: voicedata owns the db.
> The packing voicedata is in on the way.
Okay.  So the packages that contain voicedata need to Require(XXX):
voicedata where XXX are the scriptlets that update the db.

>> 2) Scriptlets need to account for upgrade/removal/install -- See
>>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Syntax
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Scriptlet_Ordering
> Thanks for pointing out the "upgrade" requirement. I think I covered
> install/uninstall script in the sample spec file.
>> 3) What's this db created during the %build?  We noticed that there's
>> sqlite3 commands in %build but the db created there isn't installed.
>> -Toshio
> Thanks for telling me this.
> I will fix the proposal and spec if you think the common voicedata idea
> still belong to fedora packaging guideline.

No problem.  We'll definitely want something written up in the
Guidelines.  I'm just not sure yet what the purpose of all the parts in
the draft is and whether there needs to be cross-distro,
cross-upstream-project consensus to make these effective.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090915/e1370661/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list