See tracking bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169
Seems an enterprising soul mass-filed bugs arguing packages placing content under /usr/share/gtk-doc doesn't necessarily need to Requires: gtk-doc
that leaves the question of what should own/provide /usr/share/gtk-doc
To start the bikeshedding, let me offer my own personal-preference orderred list: 1. gnome-filesytstem (comment #20) 2. add to 'filesystem' itself 3. gtk-doc-filesystem ... 83. make each consumer of /usr/share/gtk-doc own it
and please suggest other alternatives, if none of these are appealing to you.
-- Rex
"RD" == Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu writes:
RD> See tracking bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169 RD> Seems an enterprising soul mass-filed bugs arguing packages placing RD> content under /usr/share/gtk-doc doesn't necessarily need to RD> Requires: gtk-doc
Do the guidelines not already cover this case?
"Multiple packages own files in a common directory but none of them needs to require the others."
All of the packages should simply own /usr/share/gtk-doc.
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote, at 06/17/2010 12:37 AM +9:00:
"RD" == Rex Dieterrdieter@math.unl.edu writes:
RD> See tracking bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169 RD> Seems an enterprising soul mass-filed bugs arguing packages placing RD> content under /usr/share/gtk-doc doesn't necessarily need to RD> Requires: gtk-doc
Do the guidelines not already cover this case?
"Multiple packages own files in a common directory but none of them needs to require the others."
All of the packages should simply own /usr/share/gtk-doc.
On rawhide
# repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/*' | sort | cat -n
currently returns *206 packages* and making all of them own /usr/share/gtk-doc/html must clearly regarded as a bug in the packaging in the distibution ( I will surely complain ) and need fixing.
As /usr/share/gtk-doc/html is so common, only one filesystem-like package must own this and all of the rest must have the dependency for it.
For Rex's idea:
- gnome-filesytstem (comment #20)
- add to 'filesystem' itself
- gtk-doc-filesystem
Here I don't think 2 is acceptable because (it seems) that directories or files under /usr/share/gtk-doc (and itself) are for development purpose only and for "normal" users these directories are not needed. The directories in filesystem should generally be for ones "every" user need them. And with the same reason, I don't think 1 is a option.
For from me +0.5 (not +1) for idea 3 .... and I see little value in creating gtk-doc-filesystem only for purpose, because anyway packages in need of /usr/share/gtk-doc/ all seem for development purpose only and gtk-doc package is "not so large".
So just make all these packages have "R: gtk-doc" seems the simplest solution.
Regards, Mamoru
Another option is patching gtk-doc to let it install those API documents to /usr/share/doc/HTML. KDE packages normally install their API documents here, /usr/share/doc/HTML is also owned by fedora-release-notes which is core package is fedora.
Regards, Chen Lei
On 06/16/2010 06:44 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote, at 06/17/2010 12:37 AM +9:00:
> "RD" == Rex Dieterrdieter@math.unl.edu writes:
RD> See tracking bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169 RD> Seems an enterprising soul mass-filed bugs arguing packages placing RD> content under /usr/share/gtk-doc doesn't necessarily need to RD> Requires: gtk-doc
Do the guidelines not already cover this case?
"Multiple packages own files in a common directory but none of them needs to require the others."
All of the packages should simply own /usr/share/gtk-doc.
On rawhide
# repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/*' | sort | cat -n
currently returns *206 packages* and making all of them own /usr/share/gtk-doc/html must clearly regarded as a bug in the packaging in the distibution
Why? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
As /usr/share/gtk-doc/html is so common
No it's not "so common", it's just one directory amongst many.
Ralf
Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
So just make all these packages have "R: gtk-doc" seems the simplest solution.
Nice analysis. This is probably a good enough solution, closest to the status quo (requiring little, to no changes).
I'm ok with this and/or tibbs' suggestion of allowing individual packages to own the dir as well (those that don't have or want a dep on gtk-doc).
-- Rex
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:30:21 -0500 Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
So just make all these packages have "R: gtk-doc" seems the simplest solution.
Nice analysis. This is probably a good enough solution, closest to the status quo (requiring little, to no changes).
I'm ok with this and/or tibbs' suggestion of allowing individual packages to own the dir as well (those that don't have or want a dep on gtk-doc).
So, sorry to reopen this, but I have several packages with bugs on this and would like to know what the final decision is.
Could the packaging Committee discuss this at their next meeting (or just vote on list/in a ticket somewhere) and come up with a final decision then update:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169
With that decision?
Thanks,
kevin
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:46:48PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:30:21 -0500 Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote: .
Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
So just make all these packages have "R: gtk-doc" seems the simplest solution...
. Nice analysis. This is probably a good enough solution, closest to the status quo (requiring little, to no changes). . I'm ok with this and/or tibbs' suggestion of allowing individual packages to own the dir as well (those that don't have or want a dep on gtk-doc)...
. So, sorry to reopen this, but I have several packages with bugs on this and would like to know what the final decision is.. . Could the packaging Committee discuss this at their next meeting (or just vote on list/in a ticket somewhere) and come up with a final decision then update:. . https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169 . With that decision?. .
So I think the current situation is that there's several options. The preferred option is to have all of the packages that install files there own the directory. The question for the packaging committee is whether we should:
A) Require that in the Guidelines B) Say that we, the FPC, support people changing gtk-doc requiring packages to own the directory instead. C) Say that we, the FPC, consider this to be a matter of maintainer choice where it doesn't matter at all if the packages require gtk-doc or own the directory.
If that sounds correct, could you copy/paste that into a new ticket on https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/
and give it the meeting keyword?
-Toshio
2010/6/17 Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp:
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote, at 06/17/2010 12:37 AM +9:00:
> "RD" == Rex Dieterrdieter@math.unl.edu writes:
RD> See tracking bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169 RD> Seems an enterprising soul mass-filed bugs arguing packages placing RD> content under /usr/share/gtk-doc doesn't necessarily need to RD> Requires: gtk-doc
Do the guidelines not already cover this case?
For from me +0.5 (not +1) for idea 3 .... and I see little value in creating
gtk-doc-filesystem only for purpose, because anyway packages in need of /usr/share/gtk-doc/ all seem for development purpose only and gtk-doc package is "not so large".
So just make all these packages have "R: gtk-doc" seems the simplest solution.
Regards, Mamoru
gtk-doc itself is quite small, but it will pull in a lot of other dependencies.
See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=1993962 Chen Lei
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 10:36 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
See tracking bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169
Seems an enterprising soul mass-filed bugs arguing packages placing content under /usr/share/gtk-doc doesn't necessarily need to Requires: gtk-doc
that leaves the question of what should own/provide /usr/share/gtk-doc
To start the bikeshedding, let me offer my own personal-preference orderred list:
- gnome-filesytstem (comment #20)
- add to 'filesystem' itself
- gtk-doc-filesystem
... 83. make each consumer of /usr/share/gtk-doc own it
and please suggest other alternatives, if none of these are appealing to you.
How about making rpm's directory handling sane ?
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 12:10 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
and please suggest other alternatives, if none of these are appealing to you.
How about making rpm's directory handling sane ?
not commenting on whether or not rpm's directory handling is 'sane' but rpm-maint mailing list is at rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
and that's where discussion of changing things within rpm should probably go on.
-sv
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Chen Lei -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Kevin Fenzi -
Mamoru Tasaka -
Matthias Clasen -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rex Dieter -
Seth Vidal -
Toshio Kuratomi