On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:07:23 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:16:41 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> >
> > > > I'd like to request the following packaging policy:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > If a packager uses something with the same effect than
> > > >
> > > > %define debug_package %{nil}
> > > >
> > > > which disables the automatically built "debuginfo" package, the spec file
> > > > MUST contain a comment that explains why this is done.
> > >
> > > This goes without saying. Infact why be so specific? The rule should
> > > be that if anything is done that is out of the ordinary a comment must
> > > be added that explains why.
> >
> > What is "anything that is out of the ordinary"? Where does it start?
> > Where does it stop? You could call some BuildRequires "out of the
> > ordinary", too, but a packager might consider them as ordinary.
>
> It's very simple. You use your own judgement. When in doubt, add a
> comment. If there is ever any disagreement between packager and
> reviewer, the default is to add a comment.
??? Then something in our process is broken, because there are spec files
used in Extras where debuginfo packages are disabled _without_ a comment.
Further, we don't apply any formal post-approval reviewing (or QA), so
policies (or guidelines) for the post-approval life-time of a package are
needed. These are the same than during review, at least. But they don't
cover debuginfo packages yet.
I'm talking about _enforcing_ an explanatory comment in the spec file.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
