This is obviously an offshoot of the thread o' doom on f-d-l. I'm hoping that cooler heads can prevail here :)
I think that, while it's common sense, maybe rather than come up with an impossible packaging guideline about broken deps, a simple link from the packaging guidelines to the release criteria would be sufficient , noting that the overarching health of the distro should be taken into account when making packaging decisions.
Thoughts/flames/suggestions?
On 05/14/2009 10:32 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
This is obviously an offshoot of the thread o' doom on f-d-l. I'm hoping that cooler heads can prevail here :)
I think that, while it's common sense, maybe rather than come up with an impossible packaging guideline about broken deps, a simple link from the packaging guidelines to the release criteria would be sufficient , noting that the overarching health of the distro should be taken into account when making packaging decisions.
We probably should make sure that everything in the release criteria is covered in the Packaging Guidelines.
~spot
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
We probably should make sure that everything in the release criteria is covered in the Packaging Guidelines.
I am not sure that it primarily belongs there. Well, broken dependencies could be in the guidelines, like 'all the package requires and buildrequires should be satisfied by packages in the corresponding fedora release', but broken EVR paths mostly make sense for updates.
I think that it should better be, for example, in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
-- Pat
Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
We probably should make sure that everything in the release criteria is covered in the Packaging Guidelines.
I am not sure that it primarily belongs there. Well, broken dependencies could be in the guidelines, like 'all the package requires and buildrequires should be satisfied by packages in the corresponding fedora release', but broken EVR paths mostly make sense for updates.
Wrong - They do not make sense! They are critical bugs that need to be fixed ASAP!
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 05:57:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
We probably should make sure that everything in the release criteria is covered in the Packaging Guidelines.
I am not sure that it primarily belongs there. Well, broken dependencies could be in the guidelines, like 'all the package requires and buildrequires should be satisfied by packages in the corresponding fedora release', but broken EVR paths mostly make sense for updates.
Wrong - They do not make sense! They are critical bugs that need to be fixed ASAP!
Sure, but they can only be introduced during updates, not during the package review.
So, there could be a guideline, but it should (also) be linked from the update policy, since it is the place where broken EVR enters.
-- Pat
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 05/14/2009 10:32 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
This is obviously an offshoot of the thread o' doom on f-d-l. I'm hoping that cooler heads can prevail here :)
I think that, while it's common sense, maybe rather than come up with an impossible packaging guideline about broken deps, a simple link from the packaging guidelines to the release criteria would be sufficient , noting that the overarching health of the distro should be taken into account when making packaging decisions.
We probably should make sure that everything in the release criteria is covered in the Packaging Guidelines.
+1
Rich.
Jon Stanley wrote:
This is obviously an offshoot of the thread o' doom on f-d-l. I'm hoping that cooler heads can prevail here :)
I think that, while it's common sense, maybe rather than come up with an impossible packaging guideline about broken deps, a simple link from the packaging guidelines to the release criteria would be sufficient , noting that the overarching health of the distro should be taken into account when making packaging decisions.
The criterion so far has been: "All packages must install without errors" => Broken deps are not permitted.
Sad, but apparent, Fedora has attracted people, who don't bring along a sufficient amount of understanding packaging to take this kind of rule for granted, but need "regulations and laws" for everything :(
Proposal: Let's add a sentence similar to what I wrote above as the 1st line https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines.
Ralf
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 05:40:04PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Sad, but apparent, Fedora has attracted people, who don't bring along a sufficient amount of understanding packaging to take this kind of rule for granted, but need "regulations and laws" for everything :(
Please don't disparage people who were doing things to try and help out other Fedora users. I worked very hard to get this package into shape for F10 and EPEL [Centos] 5 users who specifically asked me for it.
Rich.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 05:40:04PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Sad, but apparent, Fedora has attracted people, who don't bring along a sufficient amount of understanding packaging to take this kind of rule for granted, but need "regulations and laws" for everything :(
Please don't disparage people who were doing things to try and help out other Fedora users. I worked very hard to get this package into shape for F10 and EPEL [Centos] 5 users who specifically asked me for it.
I have nothing to add. It's apparent, you ignored what has been taken for granted by all packagers throughout all the years Fedora exists.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jon Stanley -
Patrice Dumas -
Ralf Corsepius -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Tom Callaway