On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 01:01 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Saturday 19 June 2010, Braden McDaniel wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:04 -0500, Braden McDaniel wrote: > > > I've put up this draft: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequir > > > es > > > > > > Comments welcome. > > > > Well, this generated no comments. That, of course, must mean that the > > proposal is perfect. > > 1) "A non-noarch subpackage's dependency on its main package" > > s/on its main package/on its main package or another subpackage/ Done. > 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > I suggest tweaking the examples to include the (epoch and) version and release > for consistency with the above. > > 3) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages > Because Provides are not ISA qualified by default, both ISA qualified and non- > qualified Provides should be added where applicable and appropriate when > replacing or splitting packages in order to not break dependencies. I suggest > noting this both in this draft and the above NamingGuidelines entry. I'm not very familiar with how these drafts are normally structured as they evolve; but at this point it strikes me as beneficial to reorganize the draft into sections noting its intent and mechanism, followed by descriptions of specific concrete changes to the Packaging Guidelines and the Naming Guidelines. -- Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
