Meeting minutes and full logs of the 2008-10-21 FPC meeting are online:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021
Issues pending FESCo ratification:
* Eclipse plugin guideline modification ** Reported on-list; archive is at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-October/msg00121.html ** These tweak the guidelines to fix a few typos, clean the templates up a bit and accommodate changes in Eclipse 3.4.
* Desktop File guideline modification ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor ** This removes language which many interpreted as requiring most desktop files to be installed with --vendor=fedora.
Other discussions:
* Cpack guidelines ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CmakeCpack ** The committee was unclear as to how this applied to packaging guidelines at all, as it seems to contain tips for upstream developers instead of instructions for Fedora packagers.
* Tweaks to the specfile template for fonts ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correctio...) ** This alters the template for font packages to deal with issues surrounding the /etc/fonts/conf.avail directory. ** FPC agreed with the proposal but had some suggestions; these will be addressed and the issue will be raised later.
* New guideline relating to generically named packages and files. ** Tough to actually write a guideline involving the use of common sense as applied to things like this. ** Jason will draft a proposal for consideration soon.
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs <at> math.uh.edu> writes:
- Cpack guidelines
** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CmakeCpack ** The committee was unclear as to how this applied to packaging guidelines at all, as it seems to contain tips for upstream developers instead of instructions for Fedora packagers.
Indeed, CPack is unsuitable for building official Fedora packages for several reasons (it does not generate source RPMs [1], it treats the specfile as an implementation detail and hides it from the developer and it's extremely unlikely the specfiles it generates are compliant with our guidelines, I've seen horrible things in autogenerated specfiles).
Fedora specfiles should be either handwritten entirely or generated with a specfile generator (e.g. cpan2spec) and then hand-edited to follow the guidelines (and of course to actually build, e.g. by filling in the missing fields if the generator you used is just a template generator like the one in the rpmdevtools).
It is not hard to write a specfile for the average CMake-using package: please see this template: https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/4/40/SIGs_KDE_KDE4FAQ_kde4_foo.spec for KDE 4 applications; for non-KDE applications using CMake, use the %build and %install sections (and %check where applicable) from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/cmake instead.
[1] http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake:CPackPackageGenerators#RPM_.28Unix_Only.29
Kevin Kofler
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:42:35PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
- New guideline relating to generically named packages and files.
** Tough to actually write a guideline involving the use of common sense as applied to things like this. ** Jason will draft a proposal for consideration soon.
Tired to tell everytime the same, I have put an argumentation here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_co...
I think that it would be better to tackle this issue cross distribution, that is when we see a real conflict or a generic name used, talk to the distribution list to agree on a name.
There is another issue to be considered, it is the case of existing software already in fedora. For example ImageMagick puts in %_bindir: animate compare composite conjure convert display identify import montage stream, and there are also 2 letter command names, like gv.
A case which is also unclear is the case of sl. This package is a kind of a joke, when you type sl, there is an ascii art steam locomotive that goes through the screen. It is meant to annoy you when you wanted to type 'ls' and you typed 'sl'. It uses a precious 2 letter command name, however it has to in order to do its job and it could be replaced if something serious wanted to use it, so I think it may go in fedora, but it isn't that obvious. Review is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466997 I'd recommand not saying anything that precise and let common sense apply, but this is an unclear case in my opinion.
A last word, I think that it is sad that we have to do a guideline here, since upstream and packagers should understand the issue, and we already have too many guidelines, but I also don't know how to solve it differently, I am tired of looking at every submission and whine if it smells like a generic name is used.
-- Pat
"PD" == Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr writes:
PD> Tired to tell everytime the same, I have put an argumentation PD> here: PD> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_co...
Well, I don't recall seeing a draft guideline anywhere; if you want to submit one, be my guest. I believe this needs to be in the actual guidelines.
PD> I think that it would be better to tackle this issue cross PD> distribution, that is when we see a real conflict or a generic PD> name used, talk to the distribution list to agree on a name.
My intent was that packagers would consult FPC in the case of questions, and that FPC could take appropriate action, including checking what other distros do and attempting to coordinate when possible.
PD> A last word, I think that it is sad that we have to do a guideline PD> here, since upstream and packagers should understand the issue, PD> and we already have too many guidelines, but I also don't know how PD> to solve it differently, I am tired of looking at every submission PD> and whine if it smells like a generic name is used.
These things are not always obvious to packagers, which is why we have guidelines and reviewers. The intent is to make the guideline as short as possible (because the alternative is to make it impossibly huge), but I don't think we can continue without some kind of guideline here.
And as for getting tired of this issue, I guess the only thing I can offer is sympathy and advise that you get used to it. Many upstreams simply will not care, because to them people who use other similarly- or identically-named programs simply won't compile theirs. We, however, have to consider the uniqueness of filenames across the entire distribution, not just sets of installed packages.
- J<
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:36:56AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"PD" == Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr writes:
PD> Tired to tell everytime the same, I have put an argumentation PD> here: PD> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_co...
Well, I don't recall seeing a draft guideline anywhere; if you want to submit one, be my guest. I believe this needs to be in the actual guidelines.
Actually that is also my opinion (maybe it wasn't clear...), though I am reluctant, we have to face that too many upstream don't care.
I can help you with the guideline, but I don't have that much time during the week, I have time on week-ends.
-- Pat
Issues pending FESCo ratification:
[...]
- Desktop File guideline modification
** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor ** This removes language which many interpreted as requiring most desktop files to be installed with --vendor=fedora.
What is the current status of this? Should new packages use --vendor=fedora or not?
Cheers, Debarshi
Debarshi Ray wrote, at 01/04/2009 06:38 PM +9:00:
Issues pending FESCo ratification:
[...]
- Desktop File guideline modification
** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor ** This removes language which many interpreted as requiring most desktop files to be installed with --vendor=fedora.
What is the current status of this? Should new packages use --vendor=fedora or not?
Cheers, Debarshi
From: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg02273.html
=== Fedora Packaging Committee Guideline Proposals === * FESCo had no objections to the guideline proposals approved by the FPC. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021
Regards, Mamoru
=== Fedora Packaging Committee Guideline Proposals ===
- FESCo had no objections to the guideline proposals approved by the
FPC. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021
Thank you. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usa... needs to be updated.
Cheers, Debarshi