On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 07:45:39PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Sunday 07 September 2008, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 02:03:25PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > > On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 18:24 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote: > > > > Just a thought: perhaps the Packaging Guidelines should have a comment > > > > about formulating the "Group" tag in spec files? If nothing else they > > > > could tell you to go and read /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS, but a bit of > > > > advice would probably be welcome there, especially for new > > > > contributors. > > > > > > Hmm, I know that we decided that we were not concerned with what went > > > into the Group tag, but I don't see this reflected in the guidelines > > > anywhere. > > > > We decided to ignore Grup tag --- literally :) > > > > How about just calling Group tag deprecated and to mention that > > upcoming rpm (>=F10) won't even require one. > > My .02€: > > Even though it would be (is?) deprecated, it's not quite dead yet: it's still > mandatory in specfiles in current GA distro versions, it's still displayed > by "rpm -qi", prominently there in repoview and most likely there's a bunch > of other apps that use it for more or less important features to them (e.g. > the last time I checked: synaptic), and it is required by LSB. And it'll > take a long long time until making it optional in F-10 will trickle down to > other actively supported distro versions (think EL). > > So IMHO it would be good to have *some* guidelines for its usage that > encourage consistency. I don't personally care exactly what that consistency > means, be it a list of "valid" values or simply "Unspecified" as the only > allowed value. rpmlint currently looks at /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS and > whines if the Group is not listed in it, some more info and thoughts at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/458460 We certainly can't afford to lose LSB compliance (I didn't knew Groups: was referenced there), so indeed we need to step down a bit. Most probably we can now just make people aware that we consider the tag non-authoritative and while making best efforts to have its content sane we advise using other sources of information like the rpm metadata/comps stuff. And about adding new tags/modifying old ones: I think we should not. We should keep the current copy of GROUPS and try to fit the tags in there to nearest proximity. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpda2A7OG3kM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
