On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:00:06PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:13:18PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Following recent discussions and to reduce the maintenance burden, I'm > > > > planning to start merging native and mingw packages. Initially, I'll be > > > > looking at these packages where I maintain both variants: > > > > > > I've done the same with all the mingw packages I maintained just > > > before Fedora 37 branched. So the following native packages now > > > just contain mingw sub-RPMs: > > > > > > libvirt, libvirt-glib, libosinfo, osinfo-db, osinfo-db-tools, gtk-vnc > > > > > > I'm so happy to have reduced this maint burden. I see a few new mingw > > > packages pending in package review and think it'd be nice to first ask > > > the native maintainer to consider unified package, before we approve > > > any new separate mingw packages. > > > > > > Our Mingw packaging guidelines, however, exclusively describe fully > > > separated mingw packages. So if I suggest this to a native package > > > maintainer who is not already familiar with mingw, they would be > > > right to question whether this is a desirable thing. > > > > > > IOW, I think we need to look at getting the mingw packaging docs > > > updated to promote unified packaging as an officially supported > > > (and even preferred) option, alongside separate packaging. > > > > Sounds great. > > The Packaging Committee is looking forward to your PR ;) > > I don't want to rush into doing that myself in case someone else reading > along is very enthusiastic to do the work themselves ;-P Fast forward 6 months and evidentally no one else was enthusiastic about updating the MinGW packaging guidelines, so I've taken on that task myself :-) I have not yet submitted to the Packaging Committee for approval. The first draft of updated guidelines I have is here: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/mingw-integrated/packaging-guidelines/MinGW/ To see the precise 'diff' of new/old guidelines https://pagure.io/fork/berrange/packaging-committee/c/286537d0905835c7931eec0c6b65d35b4d8f7beb?branch=mingw-native As noted in the commit message, this new packaging approach has already been put into practice for a large number of packages, where the same maintainer owned both the native and MinGW components. The packaging guidelines update aims to make this practice official, so that it can be promoted more widely, in cases where the native maintainer is different from the mingw maintainer. Our goal is to strongly encourage the use of integrated mingw packaging, but still allow native package maintainers the discretion to opt-out of this if they feel strongly against handling mingw themselves. The keys terms of the updated guidelines are this paragraph: [quote] * Where the same Fedora contributors intend to maintain both the native and MinGW builds of a package, they **MUST** use the integrated packaging approach. * Where the upstream project supports the Windows platform as an official build target and has automated CI, contributors **SHOULD** prefer the integrated MinGW packaging approach. While native package maintainers are encouraged to accept this, they may decline this suggestion at their discretion. * Where the upstream project does not have automated testing of Windows builds, the MinGW package support **MAY** use the integrated packaging approach, subject to agreement of the native package maintainer. * Where the upstream project only supports Windows builds, the separate packaging approach **MUST** be used. There will be no corresponding native package in Fedora expected. This situation is rare. * When a contributor proposes a new native package to Fedora that provides libraries that are known to support Windows, the reviewer **SHOULD** inquire whether the contributor would like to add MinGW builds at the same time. The contributor **MAY** decline this suggestion at their discretion. [/quote] With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
