On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 02:36:08PM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote: > From: "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> >> Can Jeff Fearn or some other knowledgeable person explain > > Unfortunately, I don't know all the players that well. A Jeff did come on > to the phone call the other night, and I got the impression that he had > something to do with Publican. Eric had indicated that making it a switch > would require massive work, although the other night the possibility that > it might not be all that bad was raised. There was even talk of putting > it into the Fedora template but perhaps that was only wishful thinking. I'm almost certain that would have been Jeff Fearn, who's the Publican developer; he works at Red Hat in the Brisbane (BNE) office. The more of that stuff we can get on the list, the more people we can potentially rope into helping. I tend to think that phone calls are great for small issues and status reports, but aren't good for bigger ones in terms of the openness and transparency we need for awesome teamwork. >> Publican also has a 'make tar-<LANG>' target for making just the tarball. > > Even make srpm leaves the tar laying around, but if it is already willing > to have a shot at the spec file why not let it do that work too. > >> It might be helpful to have David or someone to describe the >> exact issue with the .desktop file here, or just point us to a bug > > Clearly I don't understand this bit at all, and that has to be the next > place to dig. Eric was the one who had his srpm refused, so perhaps if > Eric, David and myself, or perhaps someone else knowledgable can get > together we can sort it out. Right on, and please relay the findings here if you can. >> I'm looking at Publican to see whether we could >> add the needed stuff to /usr/share/publican/make/Makefile.fedora > > Eric knows exactly what has to happen inside Publican, he just didn't know > how to make it optional. I'm almost certain that I can make another set of templates and provide an appropriate specfile template that would DTRT, as long as I understand what the issues are. Then it's just a matter of finding out whether Jeff will take the patch. My preference would be to find a solution that can be contained entirely in the publican-fedora package, thus minimizing any effect on the rest of the Publican package. >> I'm not completely Makefile-ignorant > > I'm not either, but I'm hardly a maestro. Between the two of us we could probably be a genius! :-) >> We really do not want to have to punt this again >> for lack of elbow grease. > > I think even worst case it isn't too bad, but the smoother we can make it > the better. Maybe that is selfish -- I want to have it easy next time ;-) I want to have it easy *this* time because last time we said the same thing! :-) -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
pgpbpC1J18ozx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
