Proposed Changes to PHP Guidelines that need to be reviewed or ratified by the Fedora Packaging Comittee and FESCo :
The changes https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FPHP&diff=7...
The result https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP
Regards
Hi all,
Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives
I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution. I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd prefer the Provides: solution.
What do you think?
Regards, R.
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi all,
Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives
I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution. I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd prefer the Provides: solution.
If the only con of the %ghost solution is that it conflicts with "files owned by multiple packages are forbidden" I would prefer that. This is similar to the current exception to allow multiple packages to own the same directory when they are not in a hierarchical relationship. We would need to note this reasoning (or link to this) on the Conflicts page.
-Toshio
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi all,
Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives
I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution. I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd prefer the Provides: solution.
If the only con of the %ghost solution is that it conflicts with "files owned by multiple packages are forbidden"
I would advocate the use of %ghost. It works, provided the contents of all the targets are the same, ie, if they all use: touch /far/bar
Conflicts will arise to simply highlight pkgs not following the convention (ie, being a valuable debugging tool).
-- Rex
how to postfix mysql rpm install in fedora 10 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rex Dieter" rdieter@math.unl.edu To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" fedora-packaging@redhat.com Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] [Draft][RFC] The use of alternatives
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi all,
Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives
I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution. I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd prefer the Provides: solution.
If the only con of the %ghost solution is that it conflicts with "files owned by multiple packages are forbidden"
I would advocate the use of %ghost. It works, provided the contents of all the targets are the same, ie, if they all use: touch /far/bar
Conflicts will arise to simply highlight pkgs not following the convention (ie, being a valuable debugging tool).
-- Rex
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
On Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 20:03, Rex Dieter wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi all,
Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives
I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution. I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd prefer the Provides: solution.
If the only con of the %ghost solution is that it conflicts with "files owned by multiple packages are forbidden"
I would advocate the use of %ghost. It works, provided the contents of all the targets are the same, ie, if they all use: touch /far/bar
Conflicts will arise to simply highlight pkgs not following the convention (ie, being a valuable debugging tool).
Sounds good to me.
Thanks for the comments. I'll incorporate them in the draft and present it later for approval.
Regards, R.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org