Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
Thanks.
Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng
Always playing in Fedora Project
Le 27/09/2013 07:08, Christopher Meng a écrit :
Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
If the INSTALL file provides "only" the "build" commands, yes, we don't have to ship it.
In some case this command is merged in some other file (README...)
Sometime, the INSTALL file provides more explanation (configuration, environment, test..) and it could make sense to provide it. Of course it will be better to ask upstream to split it (INSTALL / POST-INSTALL), but... well...
Sometime, this is part of larger documentation (ex, in php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo, INSTALL.html is part of the upstream doc, linked from index page, so it doesn't make sense to remove it).
I think, there is so much cases... we don't need to bother packager with such a minor issue.
Remi.
Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
Thanks.
Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng
Always playing in Fedora Project
http://cicku.me
packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
On 09/27/2013 01:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
NAK, bad idea
Many INSTALL files contain valuable information potentially beyond just how to build and install the project. At times it can also be very helpful to understand how the RPM packaging may have deviated from the generic instructions or may have applied specific configuration to the generic installation instructions.
If the packager felt it was valuable to include the INSTALL file then I see no point in mindlessly overriding their discretion and experience.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:37:44 -0400, John Dennis wrote:
On 09/27/2013 01:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
NAK, bad idea
Many INSTALL files contain valuable information potentially beyond just how to build and install the project.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation | | [...] Irrelevant documentation include build instructions, the | omnipresent INSTALL file containing generic build instructions, | for example, [...]
;-)
At times it can also be very helpful to understand how the RPM packaging may have deviated from the generic instructions or may have applied specific configuration to the generic installation instructions.
For that it may need the src.rpm contents, in particular the spec file and likely the options list of a configure script.
If the packager felt it was valuable to include the INSTALL file then I see no point in mindlessly overriding their discretion and experience.
One cannot tell whether it was included deliberately. During review, it occurs often that packagers add the file together with other %doc files in the top source dir without thinking about its contents.
But the response on mass-filed bugs just for this would not be great. Only few packagers would build and update for Rawhide immediately. In many more cases, it would take months before a packager would respond. Worse, if you consider provenpackagers to apply the changes, there's the risk an INSTALL file will be readded with a future upgrade, because a packager disagrees or adds other new doc files as well.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:37 PM, John Dennis jdennis@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/27/2013 01:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
NAK, bad idea
Many INSTALL files contain valuable information potentially beyond just how to build and install the project. At times it can also be very helpful to understand how the RPM packaging may have deviated from the generic instructions or may have applied specific configuration to the generic installation instructions.
I have seen specific distro README for this, Many packages do something
totally different in different distro. Think to clamav, just for example.
Best
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:43 PM, yersinia yersinia.spiros@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:37 PM, John Dennis jdennis@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/27/2013 01:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
NAK, bad idea
Many INSTALL files contain valuable information potentially beyond just how to build and install the project. At times it can also be very helpful to understand how the RPM packaging may have deviated from the generic instructions or may have applied specific configuration to the generic installation instructions.
I have seen specific distro README for this, Many packages do something
totally different in different distro. Think to clamav, just for example.
Best
Excluding that was provided by the package authors seems a very, very bad idea. I'm staring at the "INSTALL" notes with the subversion package, which are very, very good installation notes. They're precisely what a developer needs to understand the number of dependencies they'll be working with, and to try building their own testable version without going through RPM building, which can take *a lot* of time to build the toolchain for.
Instead of excluding useless INSTALL notes, encourage package authors to write much, much better ones like these.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:08:25 +0800 Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
In addition to the other replies noting that sometimes INSTALL is of use...
Please do note http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing before filing any mass of bugs.
Thanks,
kevin
Dne 27.9.2013 07:08, Christopher Meng napsal(a):
Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
May be you can consider to add rpmlint warning? Just thinking loud ...
Vít
On 01/10/13 14:47, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27.9.2013 07:08, Christopher Meng napsal(a):
Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
May be you can consider to add rpmlint warning? Just thinking loud ...
rpmlint has had the 'install-file-in-docs' warning for a long time:
"A file whose name suggests that it contains installation instructions is included in the package. Such instructions are often not relevant for already installed packages; if this is the case for this file and it does not contain any information that is of interest after the package has been built and installed, do not include the file in the binary package."
Paul.
Dne 1.10.2013 16:13, Paul Howarth napsal(a):
On 01/10/13 14:47, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27.9.2013 07:08, Christopher Meng napsal(a):
Hi,
I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for install instructions.
Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
May be you can consider to add rpmlint warning? Just thinking loud ...
rpmlint has had the 'install-file-in-docs' warning for a long time:
"A file whose name suggests that it contains installation instructions is included in the package. Such instructions are often not relevant for already installed packages; if this is the case for this file and it does not contain any information that is of interest after the package has been built and installed, do not include the file in the binary package."
Thanks, I did not know that. Then no action is needed ;)
Vít
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Christopher Meng -
John Dennis -
Kevin Fenzi -
Michael Schwendt -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Paul Howarth -
Remi Collet -
Vít Ondruch -
yersinia