Dne 30.11.2017 v 09:49 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who want: > > 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. I belong to this camp. Especially if you are a developer of layered application, which is not part of Fedora itself (Spacewalk, Zimbra, ...), then Rawhide it too much-moving target and those developers only develop for EPEL and stable Fedoras and merely a bonus. No one of those developers actually thinks about Rawhide. There is no capacity for that. > To sum this up, my take on packaging guidelines is that *the guidelines > should document the most recent practices available in Rawhide and this > should be documented*. +1 > Covering all the exceptions necessary for older > Fedoras (not even mentioning RHEL/EPEL) makes the guidelines unreadable > and what is worse, they slow down entire development of Fedora. -1 This guideline is not only used by Fedora developers (though it is the target group), but it is also used by developers who develop their application on top of Fedora. Those exceptions are usually not big. Epel is mentioned in main guidelines twice. Exception for older Fedoras in your Ruby draft is just three lines plus one snippet. Not big impact for us and on the other hand, it helps 3rd party developers a lot. Versioned Guidelines will not help too much as 3rd party developers do not develop *just* for Fedora 26. Or *just* for EPEL 6. What they need is the difference between those versions. I thought about using a tagged version in History tab, but that does not help. This is a diff against six months older version of the same document: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3AGuidelines&type=revision&diff=505164&oldid=490812 Mirek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
