On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 06:47:50PM +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: > > > On 20/01/18 13:52, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2018 12:29, "Igor Gnatenko" <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >> TL;DR: > >> - We need an authoritative source that tells us packagers which > >> Guidelines apply to which branch (or what has to be done differently - > >> or can be done better - in, for example, f26 when compared to the > >> current Packaging Guidelines). > > Agreed, fully. But this is basically to version the GL, and that idea > was turned down when I approached the FPC with it [1]. My perspective at > that point was how to update fedora-review to match the changed GL, but > the solution was more or less the same. Versioned guidelines are much harder to use, because, essentially, you have to have multiple versions in front of you when developing for multiple Fedora releases. I think the right solution is what Python does in its docs: always specify which is the minimum version where something is available (or applies, in case of guidelines). This is actually fairly easy to do by simply always including information when adding new guidelines. I think our Guidelines already do that in various places, although possibly not everywhere where they should. Zbyszek > It's a bit depressing to compare this very feature with Debian, which > has this Standards-Version thing in their "spec", basically a checkmark > for the last "GL" version the "spec" has been updated to. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
