Hello,
I created the review request for the bacula-docs spin-off package, but nobody seems to be taking care of it.
As this is my first review I'm not sure I'm doing things correctly. Am I missing something in the procedure to bring it to the correct people attention?
Thanks, --Simone
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: bugzilla@redhat.com Date: 5 January 2012 18:14 Subject: [Bug 771941] Review Request: bacula-docs - Bacula documentation To: negativo17@gmail.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941
--- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com 2012-01-05 12:14:45 EST --- Updated; as suggested I created a bacula-devel subpackage that's required by bacula-docs to build. Thanks Tom Callaway:
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bacula.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bacula-docs-5.2.3-7.fc16.src.rpm
-- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You reported the bug.
2012/1/10 Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com:
Hello,
I created the review request for the bacula-docs spin-off package, but nobody seems to be taking care of it.
As this is my first review I'm not sure I'm doing things correctly. Am I missing something in the procedure to bring it to the correct people attention?
Usually, it takes some time till a reviewer will look at it. As this review is only 5 days old, it will simply take some time.
Sometimes, you see review trades here, so you review another, so somebody else will review yours - but I don't like that practice, as it seems, people are only reviewing, when they need to get their stuff in too...
Greetings, Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/01/12 12:10, Simone Caronni wrote:
Hello,
I just stumbled upon this:
the plan is to separate the bacula-docs subpackage from bacula package and create a new package bacula-docs. (review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941 )
My question is, is the split possible in existing trees, e.g in F16? This step doesn't introduce new features, so it shouldn't harm
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision
There's just the situation that bacula-docs is provided from earlier bacula-package and also from bacula-docs. Would those two clash in stable branches?
Thanks, - -- Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de mrunge@fedoraproject.org
On 01/11/2012 09:20 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/01/12 12:10, Simone Caronni wrote:
Hello,
I just stumbled upon this:
the plan is to separate the bacula-docs subpackage from bacula package and create a new package bacula-docs. (review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941 )
My question is, is the split possible in existing trees, e.g in F16? This step doesn't introduce new features, so it shouldn't harm
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision
There's just the situation that bacula-docs is provided from earlier bacula-package and also from bacula-docs. Would those two clash in stable branches?
Shouldn't be a problem as longs as the NEVRs are different. Some perl modules are provided by the main perl package and also independently, resulting in two versions of the same package being available and that doesn't seem to be a problem.
Paul.
On 01/11/2012 10:20 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/01/12 12:10, Simone Caronni wrote:
Hello,
I just stumbled upon this:
the plan is to separate the bacula-docs subpackage from bacula package and create a new package bacula-docs. (review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941 )
My question is, is the split possible in existing trees, e.g in F16?
When carefully done, yes. The minimum requirement would be such a change to be "100% transparent to users within a Fedora release".
IMO, however, the better question would be "why to split out docs?".
In general, separate doc packages make sense in cases they are "very large" or in case the docs are "mostly irrelevant" to users (i.e. hardly anybody will want to read/install them).
In all other cases separate doc packages do not add many benefits but only add packaging complexity (esp. dependencies) and add sources of potential bugs.
I am not familiar with your package to be able to comment on your particular case.
Ralf
Hello,
all the rationale on splitting is written in the first post of the bug review. I'm pasting it here for reference.
The main reason is of course avoiding building and updating 40+ mb of docs that should change only once a year instead of every update.
Notes:
This is a spinoff of the bacula-docs subpackage that is present inside bacula that I'm currently co-mantaining: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=281423
Motivations for the spin-off:
- To avoid rebuilding 40 mb of docs each release that never change and to avoid uploading 40 mb for each koji scratch build. - It is pointless to have the user update all the docs each time we generate a new bacula package because of a security fix or bug. - It is also built for RHEL 4/5/6 (most of the userbase goes there), and in RHEL 4/5 there's no way to specify a different BuildArch in a subpackage, so i.e. on RHEL 5 you got "x86_64" pdf files. - The package bacula-gui (currently not available in Fedora) will follow the same approach and be a separate Review Request.
Package notes:
- It has the release number immediately after the one which is in rawhide so it will update the one generated from the bacula package. If it's accepted I will remove the docs in the bacula package. - It passes all rpmlint checks. - It doesn't have an install section, all documents are included as %docs from the source folder where they are generated.
Regards, --Simone
On 11 January 2012 10:37, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 01/11/2012 10:20 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/01/12 12:10, Simone Caronni wrote:
Hello,
I just stumbled upon this:
the plan is to separate the bacula-docs subpackage from bacula package and create a new package bacula-docs. (review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/**show_bug.cgi?id=771941https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941)
My question is, is the split possible in existing trees, e.g in F16?
When carefully done, yes. The minimum requirement would be such a change to be "100% transparent to users within a Fedora release".
IMO, however, the better question would be "why to split out docs?".
In general, separate doc packages make sense in cases they are "very large" or in case the docs are "mostly irrelevant" to users (i.e. hardly anybody will want to read/install them).
In all other cases separate doc packages do not add many benefits but only add packaging complexity (esp. dependencies) and add sources of potential bugs.
I am not familiar with your package to be able to comment on your particular case.
Ralf
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.**org packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/packaginghttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Matthias Runge -
Paul Howarth -
Ralf Corsepius -
Simone Caronni -
Thomas Spura