On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 18:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > This goes out specifically to the Fedora Packaging Committee Members, > but is certainly open for comments from all. > > We've got a lot of drafts that are queued up for next Tuesday's meeting, > so it would be very helpful if you read them all well in advance: Due to the fact, I'll likely not be able to attend on Tuesday, preliminary comments/answers/votes interspersed. > ASCII Naming Guidelines (spot) : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ASCIINaming Already replied in a separate mail. > Perl Guidelines (spot) : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Perl Generally OK, but I am missing a section on perl subdirectory directory ownership. My vote: 0 without such a section, +1 with such a section. Also, I do not agree upon the section on "Makefile.PL vs. Build.PL", but ... this is nothing new. I would prefer leaving the choice to the maintainer and not to explicitly recommend Build.PL. > InitDir location (spot) : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InitDir 0, I don't understand what this draft is trying to say and which problems it is trying to solve. Could you explain? > Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins 0, no opinion on this. > OpenOffice.org extensions guidelines (Caolan McNamara) : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OpenOffice.orgExtensions OK for FC > 9, not OK for FC < 9 The unopkg concerns still apply - /usr/bin/unopkg is not available for FC < 9 Updating the FC8/7 packages to provide them won't help, because users might not have "updates" installed. - Also, I am not sure if /usr/bin is the appropriate location to install unopkg. /usr/sbin/ might be more appropriate. > Secure BuildRoot (Lubomir Kundrak) : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SecureBuildRoot +1. OK as a recommendation for Fedora < 10, but should not be made mandatory before Fedora 10 (or even later), IMO. Should this proposal be accepted, rel-eng should implement it into all packages during a mass-rebuild, may-be accompanied with rpm's upstream implementing it as "default buildroot" into (FC10's) rpm. > Register VirtualProvides (Patrice Dumas) : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesList -1 Not clear enough. Many packages apply virtual provides not covered by these lists (e.g. alternate package names, obsoletes/provides, legacy provides etc.) This proposal doesn't specify which class of virtual provides it is aiming at. > SysV-style Initscript Guidelines (spot) : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript +1, Seems OK to me. > I don't have the Java Guidelines draft on the list yet, but I hope that > it will be ready by next Tuesday: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java 0, for now, no opinion on that. I don't see any obvious mistake/flaw, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on java to be able to comment on details. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
