On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 06:22 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > 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. I've added a section to the draft that reflects what the general guidelines already have. Please let me know if you feel this is sufficient. > > 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? This draft has been absorbed into a section in the SysVInitScript draft. I've also tried to make it more clear. > > 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. The guidelines could always add a Require for the specific update n-v-r to ensure that users do have the updates installed. > > 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. This draft is specifically targeted for F10 and later. There is no intention to do mass rebuilds to enforce this in F9 or older. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
