Can someone tell me what package should own /usr/share/gnome/help, or if individual packages placing files there should own it? The latter seems to be the case, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Is there any reason why /usr/share/gnome/help shouldn't just be owned by filesystem? It already owns /usr/share/gnome.
Actually, it seems that several other packages own /usr/share/gnome too, which probably begs for some bugs to be filed.
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Can someone tell me what package should own /usr/share/gnome/help, or if individual packages placing files there should own it? The latter seems to be the case, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Is there any reason why /usr/share/gnome/help shouldn't just be owned by filesystem? It already owns /usr/share/gnome.
yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have gnome help should Require yelp or not. I think it's a bug if a package has a help menu that doesn't work so I lean towards requiring it. Others think help should be optional (like man pages and other documentation).
If yelp is not Required, then filesystem should own /usr/share/gnome/help. If yelp is required, the filesystem ownership will do no harm.
Actually, it seems that several other packages own /usr/share/gnome too, which probably begs for some bugs to be filed.
+1
-Toshio
"TK" == Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com writes:
TK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not.
What about a package that _only_ provides gnome help? The system-config-* packages have split out their documentation and I'm reviewing the new packages, but am stuck on this issue.
TK> If yelp is not Required, then filesystem should own TK> /usr/share/gnome/help. If yelp is required, the filesystem TK> ownership will do no harm.
This would imply that any package other than yelp or filesystem which owns /usr/share/gnome/help has a bug, I guess. More to file.
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"TK" == Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com writes:
TK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not.
What about a package that _only_ provides gnome help? The system-config-* packages have split out their documentation and I'm reviewing the new packages, but am stuck on this issue.
From my point of view that the help button in the app should work, the new package doesn't need to split out the gnome-help portion as the app would need to require it anyway. And if the app requires it, the app package can also require yelp.
However, maybe we need to decide whether it's okay for the help menu item to "not work". (ATM I believe the app appears to not do anything if yelp is not installed. Not sure what happens if yelp is installed but the help pages are not available.) If others think it's okay for Help to not pop up a help window then the sane thing to me would to move ownership of the directory into filesystem.
TK> If yelp is not Required, then filesystem should own TK> /usr/share/gnome/help. If yelp is required, the filesystem TK> ownership will do no harm.
This would imply that any package other than yelp or filesystem which owns /usr/share/gnome/help has a bug, I guess. More to file.
Yeah, after we get /usr/share/gnome/help into filesystem.
-Toshio
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 12:08 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"TK" == Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com writes:
TK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not.
What about a package that _only_ provides gnome help? The system-config-* packages have split out their documentation and I'm reviewing the new packages, but am stuck on this issue.
TK> If yelp is not Required, then filesystem should own TK> /usr/share/gnome/help. If yelp is required, the filesystem TK> ownership will do no harm.
This would imply that any package other than yelp or filesystem which owns /usr/share/gnome/help has a bug, I guess. More to file.
Filing more bugs does not really help improve this situation. Fixing rpm to handle directories sensibly would.
"MC" == Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com writes:
MC> Filing more bugs does not really help improve this situation.
It's just a directory ownership change. I mean, I'd just fix them, but then I'd expect to get flames. I guess I should expect that regardless.
MC> Fixing rpm to handle directories sensibly would.
That is not within my power. We have guidelines written for the rpm which currently exists.
- J<
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 12:08 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com writes:
TK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not.
What about a package that _only_ provides gnome help? The system-config-* packages have split out their documentation and I'm reviewing the new packages, but am stuck on this issue.
TK> If yelp is not Required, then filesystem should own TK> /usr/share/gnome/help. If yelp is required, the filesystem TK> ownership will do no harm.
This would imply that any package other than yelp or filesystem which owns /usr/share/gnome/help has a bug, I guess. More to file.
Filing more bugs does not really help improve this situation.
What situation precisely? The passage quoted implicates adding /usr/share/gnome/help to the filesystem package and then changing individual packages to not own /usr/share/gnome/help as filesystem would then own it. That does seem like an improvement over the current situation.
I have a feeling you're thinking of something more meta, though.
Fixing rpm to handle directories sensibly would.
This is probably something you need to talk to the rpm maintainers about. They've been making lots of changes to rpm recently. If you have a proposal, they'll be able to tell us if it's something that's doable in the continued rpm cleanup or something that goes too deeply into what rpm is.
-Toshio
"TK" == Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com writes:
TTK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not. I think it's a bug if a TK> package has a help menu that doesn't work so I lean towards TK> requiring it.
For one reference, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243408 which would tend to indicate that yelp should not generally be a dependency of packages which have gnome help
However, the situation here may be different, since the package contains nothing other than help files. Are these not generally viewable without using yelp? (I.e. is there no KDE-based browser or command line client?) If not, what would be the point of having a package containing documentation that doesn't ensure that the system has a way to view it?
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"TK" == Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com writes:
TTK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not. I think it's a bug if a TK> package has a help menu that doesn't work so I lean towards TK> requiring it.
For one reference, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243408 which would tend to indicate that yelp should not generally be a dependency of packages which have gnome help
Oops... I found the mailing list thread and there was a conclusion. Packages should not require yelp. Instead, packages that fail silently when yelp is not installed need a bug to print the error dialog returned from the gnome API.
So it seems like filesystem owning /usr/share/gnome/help would be the best so that we don't need to have every package own /usr/share/gnome/help.
-Toshio
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:01:09PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Oops... I found the mailing list thread and there was a conclusion. Packages should not require yelp. Instead, packages that fail silently
That was not my conclusion. My conclusion was that it was up to the packager.
This doesn't change that your conclusion holds:
So it seems like filesystem owning /usr/share/gnome/help would be the best so that we don't need to have every package own /usr/share/gnome/help.
-- Pat
Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:01:09PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Oops... I found the mailing list thread and there was a conclusion. Packages should not require yelp. Instead, packages that fail silently
That was not my conclusion. My conclusion was that it was up to the packager.
Well... https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg01522.html
Maybe there isn't a general case conclusion to draw but it sounds like treating help as an optional feature is what was decided for at least the desktop-team's subset of packages. We didn't generate any Guidelines out of that discussion so the package probably isn't going to raise any flags at review time.
This doesn't change that your conclusion holds:
So it seems like filesystem owning /usr/share/gnome/help would be the best so that we don't need to have every package own /usr/share/gnome/help.
<nod>
-Toshio
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:34:55PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Maybe there isn't a general case conclusion to draw but it sounds like treating help as an optional feature is what was decided for at least the desktop-team's subset of packages. We didn't generate any
Indeed, and I remember there were some bugs filled. But the thread shows that there was no consensus, and, for example, I kept yelp as a gnochm dependency, considering that having a help window that comes when clicking on help wasn't optional, and that the bloat wasn't too important given that it already was a gnome app.
That being said, I orphaned gnochm, so everybody is free to remove yelp :)
# repoquery --whatrequires yelp gtranslator-0:1.1.7-9.fc10.i386 gnomesword-0:2.4.1-1.fc10.i386 gnochm-0:0.9.11-2.fc9.noarch lat-0:1.2.3-4.fc10.i386 conglomerate-0:0.9.1-5.fc9.i386 gnucash-docs-0:2.2.0-2.fc8.noarch gnomesword-0:2.4.0-1.fc10.i386
-- Pat
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Matthias Clasen -
Patrice Dumas -
Toshio Kuratomi