https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997994 --- Comment #12 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks! I’ve skimmed your responses. > We've addressed this for debian, too. Essentially the packaged version is too old for our requirements (5.1.3), which is not available on most distributions. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any way around the ban on pre-compiled CSS. The current guidelines around JavaScript and web assets are very strict—arguably, so strict that modern web assets usually can’t be packaged. > I can set USE_CJSON_SO to 1 (to use the system-installed version, provided by `cjson-devel`) Sounds good. > for list I didn't find a package It can be packaged as a dependency. > For mustache, developer checked, and claims the existing packages are not what he needs. As in, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mustache can’t be used because it is not actually the same library, or the upstream version of https://gitlab.com/jobol/mustach (not currently packaged in Fedora as far as I can tell) can’t be used, e.g. because the version in oidc-agent is forked? Bundling is allowed in Fedora, but there are specific conditions that have to be met, and the bundling has to be properly justified and indicated with virtual Provides. For example “nobody has packaged the dependency yet” does not allow you to bundle it, but “upstream doesn’t support building against an external library and I publicly contacted them at https://example.com/link about whether it could be possible in the future” does. > Right. What would you suggest? All conditionals in the main specfile and then includes to distribution specific ones? Especially considering Fabio’s reminder about non-Fedora and non-EPEL conditionals, I think you’ll just need to commit to the idea that you will need to merge changes into the Fedora spec file, and will not be able to maintain a single source for all distributions. > We did this, so updates to manually installed oidc-agent packages would still work (even though we've split it into oidc-agent-cli and oidc-agent-desktop). But since you say _strongly_ I take it that meta-packages are not intended to exist here, and I removed the %files section. (Please tell me if there is another way to have such a meta package). In this case, I missed that oidc-agent had “Requires: %{name}-desktop%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}”, so I thought it was just a useless nearly-empty package rather than a metapackage. Metapackages are common in Fedora. Usually they have an empty %files section, and that seems to make sense here since other subpackages already have the license and readme. Please feel free to use oidc-agent as a metapackage for convenient installation. If you are ever inclined to use a metapackage strictly for upgrade compatibility, Providing the old name is usually a better choice. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages for an example, but note that you don’t need the full Package Renaming Process to rename a subpackage. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997994 _______________________________________________ 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
