Re: rpmautospec deployment into production

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> writes:

> Dan Čermák kirjoitti 18.7.2021 klo 23.38:
>> Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>>> Dan Čermák kirjoitti 17.7.2021 klo 23.10:
>>>> Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> What is the situation wrt new packages? Should we enforce the use of
>>>>> rpmautospec during reviews or is it completely optional?
>>>>
>>>> I think we should encourage the usage of rpmautospec for new packages,
>>>> provided that the packager feels comfortable enough to use it. E.g. I
>>>> wouldn't suggest it for someone's first package. But this shouldn't
>>>> become a *MUST*, at least not yet.
>>>
>>> I am curious regarding the reasons for not recommending rpmautospec for
>>> new maintainers? It is an automation feature that removes manual steps
>>> from the process. Using it is simpler than doing the same manually. I
>>> think we should offer the simplest possible process for newcomers and
>>> only recommend manual overrides for use cases that automation cannot
>>> handle (yet).
>> 
>> Well, I think that a total newcomer is already struggling enough to
>> produce a good spec file for their first package, but now they also need
>> to keep in mind that their changelog is tied to the git history (and can
>> thus not be changed easily anymore). Back when I started packaging, I
>> found a lot of the details quite confusing and was building packages on
>> copr and locally for a few years before I dared to go near koji. At
>> least for me using rpmautospec would've been another one of these
>> confusing details. That's why I would only recommend its usage, until
>> most other build system out there use something comparable and beginners
>> can be expected to know this concept already.
>
> Understood. That makes sense. This is a case of different backgrounds. 
> The only rpm packages I have ever built are Fedora official packages. 
>  From that angle, using rpmautospec is just simpler. In your case, it is 
> the other way round.

Yeah, so for a package review I'd suggest the usage of rpmautospec if
the packager is comfortable with that, but wouldn't enforce it for now.


Cheers,

Dan
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux