Logs of this meeting are available at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/IRCLog20061219 Note that any linked drafts may not yet be updated with all of the changes approved in the meeting. A good meeting this week; we had 100% attendance and dealt with many items. The draft concerning the proper use of Provides: and Obsoletes: when packages are named or replaced by packages of equivalent functionality at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesObsoletes was considered first. It was noted that the epoch should be added in a few places. There was discussion about how long to keep Provides: for the old package name, and the decision was made that this should be done for two releases. The draft was approved with those changes. The draft about scriptlets for updating the icon cache at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache was considered next. There was discussion about applicability to core packages in FC6 and older (which isn't possible because xdg-utils is in Extras). The draft was approved with minor changes (which seem to have already been made). Next there was a quick vote on linking to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo in the guidelines and adding a requirement that commentary is required in the spec if debuginfo generation is disabled. The proposal was accepted. We discussed package naming (and the jpackage naming in particular) as it relates to the Core/Extras merge and the upcoming mass review. Currently there are many packages which will not pass review because the naming guidelines are violated, including a large number of Java-related packages in core. We discussed making a sweep through the universe of packages to identify those with naming issues. This isn't strictly packaging committee territory, but nonetheless it needs to be done, and volunteers are appreciated. There was also some discussion about lower case package names; the general sentiment was that we shouldn't try to mandate anything like that. There are many interesting issues there and the discussion will probably return at some point. We discussed how to properly indicate packages needing review; there's a packagedb field, but in lieu of the packagedb we talked about putting a file in CVS. This is more FESCo territory and some us would like to bring it up there. We did a little work on the License: tag proposal; the general sentiment is that we should keep the License: tag as simple as possible. (There was a message to the packaging list proposing a structured field with various pieces of information, but this wasn't accepted.) An early draft proposal is at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag - J< -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
