Hello everyone,
Due to lack of time, I aim to release the major change fedora-backgrounds spec file for the 40th of the system. Following Matt's suggestion, the goal is to consolidate default wallpaper for each future release.
Hi Luya!
I'm confused - what does this mean specifically? Is this a proposal to consolidate the release default wallpaper (fedora-backgrounds-*) with the fedora-workstation-backgrounds package into one package, or something different?
~m
On August 6, 2022 11:13:56 PM EDT, Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hello everyone,
Due to lack of time, I aim to release the major change fedora-backgrounds spec file for the 40th of the system. Following Matt's suggestion, the goal is to consolidate default wallpaper for each future release.
-- Luya Tshimbalanga Fedora Design Team Fedora Design Suite maintainer
On 2022-08-06 21:45, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Hi Luya!
I'm confused - what does this mean specifically? Is this a proposal to consolidate the release default wallpaper (fedora-backgrounds-*) with the fedora-workstation-backgrounds package into one package, or something different?
~m
It is more about consolating fedora-backgrounds to minimise the submission to packaging review on every release. In some extent, this report (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435423) related to desktop-backgrounds will need a revisit to simplify the packaging process.
On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 12:59:17AM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
On 2022-08-06 21:45, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Hi Luya!
I'm confused - what does this mean specifically? Is this a proposal to consolidate the release default wallpaper (fedora-backgrounds-*) with the fedora-workstation-backgrounds package into one package, or something different?
~m
It is more about consolating fedora-backgrounds to minimise the submission to packaging review on every release. In some extent, this report (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435423) related to desktop-backgrounds will need a revisit to simplify the packaging process.
I wonder... if the problem is reviewing each new background package, perhaps we could script making the new package and except it from review?
Putting everything in one package means a lot of churn per cycle for all the folks that have the old wallpaper packages installed.
kevin
On Sun, 2022-08-07 at 12:47 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 12:59:17AM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
On 2022-08-06 21:45, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Hi Luya!
I'm confused - what does this mean specifically? Is this a proposal to consolidate the release default wallpaper (fedora-backgrounds-*) with the fedora-workstation-backgrounds package into one package, or something different?
~m
It is more about consolating fedora-backgrounds to minimise the submission to packaging review on every release. In some extent, this report (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435423) related to desktop-backgrounds will need a revisit to simplify the packaging process.
I wonder... if the problem is reviewing each new background package, perhaps we could script making the new package and except it from review?
Putting everything in one package means a lot of churn per cycle for all the folks that have the old wallpaper packages installed.
What I was thinking is whether we could have one *source* package that generates all the binary packages (so one source for f34-backgrounds, f35-backgrounds, f36-backgrounds etc).
Sure, it'd be quite big, but we have other big source packages. With smart use of macros it should be possible to set it up so you can just change one macro number to add a new source package for a new release, maybe...
We could also go back and look at all the ideas we've had in the past for improving things here, as we've definitely been over it before...
On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 01:41:57PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
What I was thinking is whether we could have one *source* package that generates all the binary packages (so one source for f34-backgrounds, f35-backgrounds, f36-backgrounds etc).
Sure, it'd be quite big, but we have other big source packages. With smart use of macros it should be possible to set it up so you can just change one macro number to add a new source package for a new release, maybe...
Sure, but it would then update all those subpackages, so when we add 'f37-backgrounds' to it, all users who have f36-bacgrounds, f35-background, f34-backgrounds, etc would need to update all of those, even though nothing at all changed with them.
We could also go back and look at all the ideas we've had in the past for improving things here, as we've definitely been over it before...
yeah, but I think we didn't come up with a real good answer. ;(
kevin
How is the new package review enforced? Could an exemption be made based on package name and then to protect from abuse a FAS group membership from packager too?
~m
On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 06:54:32PM -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
How is the new package review enforced?
It's checked at the time you request the new project/repo setup.
You can pass --exception to fedpkg request-repo to not have to provide a review bug and then the person processing that request has to decide if it's ok to be an exception, etc.
Could an exemption be made based on package name and then to protect from abuse a FAS group membership from packager too?
I think we could add an exception for this, yes.
kevin
On 2022-08-08 15:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 06:54:32PM -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
How is the new package review enforced?
It's checked at the time you request the new project/repo setup.
You can pass --exception to fedpkg request-repo to not have to provide a review bug and then the person processing that request has to decide if it's ok to be an exception, etc.
Thank you the tips. I was unaware about the --expection parameter.
desktop@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Kevin Fenzi -
Luya Tshimbalanga -
Máirín Duffy