On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/12/2015 09:01 PM, Elder Marco wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Since version 2.x.x. plowshare is not shipped with modules anymore. >> There are two repositories. The main repository [1], with the core >> package, and a new repository, with the modules [2]. > > > I have never used plowshare nor do I know what it is used for. > >> Due the massive change of hosters, the modules are always beeing >> updated, and a little tool "plowmod" deal with modules updates. This >> tool can install and update the modules locally, which is much better >> than to provide the modules inside the package. >> >> So, upstream recommends to deal with "plowshare" core only, which it is >> quite stable. And I agree. >> >> So, the question is: Am I violating Fedora Packaging Guidelines if I do >> not provide the modules into fedora repositories? > > Letting applications install something into system-wide directories outside > of rpm is not allowed in Fedora. Note that is's not preventable: Python, CPAN, and rubygems all have strong support for this, although it's certainly preferable. > But I don't think the FPG formally disallows installing arbitrary > executables from arbitrary sites into private user directories as part of > applications. And I'm very grateful for the very nice people who sort out the dependencies and build up SRPM's rather than saying "dude!!! just run CPAN". I've been going through this lately with chef RPM's and trying to pott them to Fedora or RHEL, and the ruby 'bundler' they use seems to build RPM's, not SPRM's,a nd installs rubygems from upstream at build time. *NASTY!!!*. plowmod seems to be more like SpamAssassin: it can be RPM packaged, but its out of date *really fast* and it's very difficult to keep the modules packaged. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
