On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:05:54 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > I see more and more issues related to FPG. And most discouraging is not > what is inside FPG because I can agree with most of the advices in this > document > Seem some packagers are using it almost blindly. And we are not talking > about few but something like almost majority. That is not a new problem. The review queue, for example, is filled with packages, which won't pass review and which require a lot of work, because the submitters haven't even tried to review their packages themselves. In other cases, packages are mispackaged. In extreme cases, they don't work anymore once installed. Fedora's Packaging Committee suggests that packagers post to the packaging@ mailing-list in case of doubt, not that packagers create non-working [or otherwise mispackaged) packages only to meet the guidelines or because of misunderstanding the guidelines. If anything is discouraging, it is that some people hide in the review queue instead of getting active and asking about something. About your ramblings on Obsoletes: When you refer to removing a package "permanently", that is a fallacy. You cannot predict whether you may want to reintroduce a package some day. Even for a foo-static package there may be a reason why to build such a package again. Blocking a package name completely is not nice. It may be a 3rd party repo to reintroduce that package with a higher version or bumped Epoch. Or a local admin, who wants to keep it. Non-versioned Obsoletes make it more difficult to reintroduce the package, since you would need to get rid of the Obsoletes tags from installed packages *and* from the repo metadata first. Properly versioned Obsoletes also remove a package from the dist forever, provided that the package is not reintroduced in the future. Using macros is a trade-off, which also obsoletes any updates or upgrades the obsolete package may have had for older dist releases. Non-versioned Obsoletes is the big hammer and a sloppy solution. That a packager can violate the dist upgrade path is a general problem and not specific to versioned Obsoletes tags. No comment on the rest of your mail. TL;DR. I suggest you cut it into smaller pieces, which make more clear what and how you're trying to improve something. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
