[Bug 2097267] Review Request: rubygem-ast-tdl - An experimental and minimalistic Training Description Language

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097267

Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     |nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
              Flags|needinfo?(iztok@iztok-jr-fi |
                   |ster.eu)                    |



--- Comment #7 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Jarek Prokop from comment #6)
> > The documentation subpackage contains bundled fonts and JavaScript. You could possibly handle the JavaScript in accordance with <...snip..>
> 
> I am afraid that that has been a known problem for some time:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224715
> 
> In Ruby, we have opted for providing generated documentation at the expense
> of bundling fonts and JS, so please, don't remove documentation files from
> the package.

At the same time, based on bug 2006555 and the linked “packaging” mailing list
discussion, the latest consensus is that HTML documentation generated by Sphinx
or Doxygen doesn’t appear to be suitable for packaging for similar reasons. A
significant number of Fedora community members seem to feel quite strongly that
these particular bundling rules should be inviolable, and supersede anything in
language-specific guidelines that might seem to provide an exception. You can
also see this in the discussion the last few times the NodeJS packaging
guidelines have come up on the “devel” mailing list.

I’m not personally committing to one side or the other at the moment, just
pointing out that the matter is significantly controversial.

At some point, I think we (Fedora) are going to have to clarify the situation,
and either commit to an outright ban on this kind of documentation or
explicitly approve a set of rules for handling it properly. However, I’m not
really prepared to personally touch off that particular powder keg at the
moment. Instead, with apologies, I’m going to elect to step back from this
review.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097267
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux