On 29 July 2015 at 18:42, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:53:27 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote: > >> "The Emacs add-on packaging guidelines no longer stipulate that packages which >> also bundle support for Emacs should split out those Emacs files into separate >> sub-packages. This package should instead ship those files with the main >> package which should also Require emacs-filesystem. See >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs for more detail." > > And once again the wording is weak. It says "should". Three times even. > What's wrong with the word "should"? What am I missing? Seems like the usual use of this word to me? > Based on that, calling existing emacs- subpackages "violations" is a > highly questionable thing to do. the only place the word "violation" appears is in an alias I gave to a tracking bug I set up to track emacs packages which haven't update to the new guidelines. It doesn't appear in the bug report. > And new packagers would prefer more > clear and concise wording, too. It'd be great if you could suggest a clearer wording - the current guidelines resulted from an effort to clarify the old ones, but I'm sure there's room for improvement. I'd happily read over a draft if you prepared one for the FPC, I definitely agree the current ones are a bit cumbersome. Cheers, Jonathan. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
