Another almost two months passed and updated Ruby guidelines are still not approved. Hence I opened FPC ticket which requests the packaging guidelines to be Rawhide only. This should hopefully help us improve the packaging: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/742 Vít Dne 30.11.2017 v 09:49 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi all, > > Reading logs from yesterdays FPC meeting [1], I think we should discuss > what is actually purpose of packaging guidelines and which version of > Fedora/EPEL/RHEL they actually targets. > > > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who want: > > 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. > > 2) clean .spec file following the latest and greatest packaging practices. > > > I personally belong to the group (2) and that is for several reasons: > > a) I use Rawhide on daily basis and I develop only for Rawhide. If I do > changes in older Fedoras, then it is typically just bug fixes and > honestly, that does not happen often (I am POC of ~200 packages and I > submitted just 40 updates during last year [2]). And in fact, this is > official philosophy of updates [3], not just mine. > > b) I spent time developing features which should simplify packaging (for > example in F27+, the RPM %setup macro can expand the .gem packages) and > I want to use these technologies to simplify my life and life of others. > > c) As a proven packager and person who typically does rebuild of Ruby > packages, I really hate the branched .spec files where nobody knows what > was the purpose of the branches, most of the branches are for obsolete > and unsupported releases etc. It is quite hard to apply any improvements > into such packages. Moreover it is not realistic to test them. If they > were maintained, it would be different story, but the reality is different. > > > Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are packagers who has just > handful of packages and it is better for them to maintain just single > .spec file with all the branches and I don't mind them as long as the > packages are really actively maintained. But this approach just don't > scale and should be exception and not recommended practice. > > > To sum this up, my take on packaging guidelines is that *the guidelines > should document the most recent practices available in Rawhide and this > should be documented*. Covering all the exceptions necessary for older > Fedoras (not even mentioning RHEL/EPEL) makes the guidelines unreadable > and what is worse, they slow down entire development of Fedora. > > > Vít > > > > [1] > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/QDQ42LRLCP5NOIFSAMUDMP6ZUH3AAHKN/ > > [2] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?user=vondruch > > [3] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/710 > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
