Thanks for your response and suggestions Toshio.
I think it's more venting frustration than actually blaming the FPC for
being a roadblock.
*Anything* that we can do to resolve these issues, keeping in mind the
limited resources we are working with and the need to work together and
forge stronger relationships going forward, will be great.
Josh
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Joshua Wulf wrote:
Thanks Joshua,
I think that Jeff and Chris are referring to this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471
IIUC, this boils down to:
1) Publican creates a different documentation package for each Fedora
Release as it considers them to be separate documents. ie:
Fedora-10-Security-Guide, Fedora-11-Security-Guide.
2) This means a new package review for each documentation package each
release.
If you're willing to go through a new review each release, there's no
problem.
If you want a single review to cover you for all releases, we need a new
Guideline. I think if it's a potential goal to be able to install the
Fedora-10-Security-Guide on Fedora-11, then I'd be against such a
Guideline as separate packages really are what you want. If it's
specifically a non-goal to do that, then it's a possibility although
changing the name to not have the version in it strikes me as the better
option there. Following onto that, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want
to use publican to create an initial spec file and then modify it to
meet the specifics of the situation. This is the workflow for CPAN2RPM,
rpmdev-newspetemplate, and other tools.
Another option is to look at a streamlined set of review items for
publican-created doc packages... We've never explicitly done this but in
practice, people know they don't have to check, for instance, shared
library guidelines when writing and reviewing a pure python module.
and possibly this as well:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482972
What's the problem here? That the .desktop is created inline in the
spec file instead of as a separate file? If that's all it is, I can
propose to the FPC to amend that. I can't recall a reason that it had
to be included in the SRPM as a file specifically.
Note that neither of these issues had reached the FPC's radar (they
still haven't, really, as I'm only one member and this isn't the
packaging mailing list) so blaming the FPC as the roadblock is a bit
misplaced.
-Toshio
--
Joshua J Wulf
Engineering Content Services
Red Hat Asia Pacific
eml: jwulf@xxxxxxxxxx
tel: +61 (0)7 3514 8140
mob: +61 (0)431 929 675
tmz: GMT +10
(0) - omit when dialling internationally
--
fedora-docs-list mailing list
fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
