The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda:
* pkgconfig autorequires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires
* Revised Emacs add-on guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EmacsPackagingRevised
* man-pages guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Varekova/man-pages/missing-man-pages
* Python3 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python3
A reminder: If you have something that you want to get onto the FPC's agenda, the procedure is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedur...
Thanks,
~spot
On 11/23/2009 11:04 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda:
Scratch that, this is wrong. I had forgotten that we'd moved to Wednesdays, and this coming Wednesday will not work due to the Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
Lets try this again.
The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda:
* pkgconfig autorequires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires
* Revised Emacs add-on guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EmacsPackagingRevised
* man-pages guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Varekova/man-pages/missing-man-pages
* Python3 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python3
A reminder: If you have something that you want to get onto the FPC's agenda, the procedure is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedur...
Thanks,
~spot
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:15 -0500 "Tom "spot" Callaway" tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/23/2009 11:04 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda:
Scratch that, this is wrong. I had forgotten that we'd moved to Wednesdays, and this coming Wednesday will not work due to the Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
Lets try this again.
The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda:
- pkgconfig autorequires:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires
A quick comment on this: if pkgconfig isn't an explicit dependency, what provides the ownership of the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig directory?
If all packages with .pc files omit the pkgconfig dependency, there will be nothing actually pulling in pkgconfig itself, will there?
Paul.
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 21:25 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:15 -0500 "Tom "spot" Callaway" tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
- pkgconfig autorequires:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires
A quick comment on this: if pkgconfig isn't an explicit dependency, what provides the ownership of the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig directory?
If all packages with .pc files omit the pkgconfig dependency, there will be nothing actually pulling in pkgconfig itself, will there?
RPM creates automatically a Requires: pkgconfig (actually, I think it is Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config, which resolves to pkgconfig) for packages that contain .pc files. So the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig dir ownership is OK.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:25:16PM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:15 -0500 "Tom "spot" Callaway" tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/23/2009 11:04 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda:
Scratch that, this is wrong. I had forgotten that we'd moved to Wednesdays, and this coming Wednesday will not work due to the Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
Lets try this again.
The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda:
- pkgconfig autorequires:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires
A quick comment on this: if pkgconfig isn't an explicit dependency, what provides the ownership of the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig directory?
If all packages with .pc files omit the pkgconfig dependency, there will be nothing actually pulling in pkgconfig itself, will there?
pkgconfig should now be an automatic dependency.
If you know of any corner cases where rpm doesn't autodetect, we should note those.
-Toshio
Le 23/11/2009 17:08, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda:
I've add to the TODO discussion list : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP
There is 3 minor updates to the Guideline (to be clearer) - subfolder (in /usr/share/php) - ABI Check (for C extension, not only PECL official one) - additional comment (about scriptlet)
And an FPC decision seems necessary about package name - most of old packages (>70) use only - (ex php-pear-Auth-SASL) - some recent packages use mixed - and _ (ex php-pear-Auth_HTTP) See https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-php-devel-list/2009-July/thread.html
I should be available to discuss this if needed.
Regards
On 11/24/2009 01:17 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
And an FPC decision seems necessary about package name
- most of old packages (>70) use only - (ex php-pear-Auth-SASL)
- some recent packages use mixed - and _ (ex php-pear-Auth_HTTP)
See https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-php-devel-list/2009-July/thread.html
FWIW, I'd prefer the underscore not be used, but the guidelines currently permit it, assuming it is inherited from upstream's naming. However, given that practically all other packaged PHP modules use -, I could see the merit in requiring PHP packages to replace - with _. Is that what the PHP SIG is asking for FPC to approve?
~spot
On 11/24/2009 05:53 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 11/24/2009 01:17 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
And an FPC decision seems necessary about package name
- most of old packages (>70) use only - (ex php-pear-Auth-SASL)
- some recent packages use mixed - and _ (ex php-pear-Auth_HTTP)
See https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-php-devel-list/2009-July/thread.html
FWIW, I'd prefer the underscore not be used,
Would you mind to explain?
I am not aware about any technical reason for disallowing underscores.
Ralf
On 11/24/2009 12:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am not aware about any technical reason for disallowing underscores.
I'm not aware of any technical reason either. It is a personal preference, I think it makes the packages have a cleaner naming scheme.
Accordingly, I have never pushed for it to be a requirement that _ not be used when upstream uses it in its naming, but if the PHP SIG asked for us to amend the PHP naming guidelines to exclude it, I would consider it.
~spot
On 11/24/2009 06:20 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 11/24/2009 12:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am not aware about any technical reason for disallowing underscores.
I'm not aware of any technical reason either. It is a personal preference, I think it makes the packages have a cleaner naming scheme.
As you say, it's a matter of personal preference => insufficient rationale.
Accordingly, I have never pushed for it to be a requirement that _ not be used when upstream uses it in its naming, but if the PHP SIG asked for us to amend the PHP naming guidelines to exclude it, I would consider it.
Then they should better elaborate their rationale.
I for one am opposed to any "transliteration", which isn't motivated by strong technical reasons, because they only add further confusion.
Ralf
Le 24/11/2009 18:20, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
On 11/24/2009 12:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am not aware about any technical reason for disallowing underscores.
I'm not aware of any technical reason either. It is a personal preference, I think it makes the packages have a cleaner naming scheme.
I agree (when - and _ are present at the same time, make name really awful IMHO)
Accordingly, I have never pushed for it to be a requirement that _ not be used when upstream uses it in its naming, but if the PHP SIG asked for us to amend the PHP naming guidelines to exclude it, I would consider it.
There is no censensus about this (if you have some time to read the thread linked in the previous message)
First old packages (imported when the general Guidelines wasn't clear, and probably to do like perl packages) use only - (more than 70, ex php-pear-Auth-SASL)
Some New recent packages use both (ex php-pear-Auth_HTTP)
So I think decision go to FPC and must be written in the PHP Guidelines
Choice : 1- package must use only - 2- package must use - at the beginning (php-pear-) and _ at the end 3- package could use - or _ according to packager pref.
And I think maintainers are not ready to enter a massive rename plan. I'm waiting for this before submiting new review (at least 4 packages).
+
~spot
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
On 11/24/2009 12:44 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
So I think decision go to FPC and must be written in the PHP Guidelines
Choice : 1- package must use only - 2- package must use - at the beginning (php-pear-) and _ at the end 3- package could use - or _ according to packager pref.
Well, the way the guidelines are now is that _ can only be used as part of the upstream name, and not as a separator. So, if the upstream name is HTML_Javascript, then the package can be either:
php-pear-HTML_Javascript
or
php-pear-HTML-Javascript
depending on the packager's preference.
However,
php_pear_HTML_Javascript is not acceptable, because _ should never be used as a separator.
Unless you're proposing that PHP be excepted from these rules, I'm inclined to simply leave the guidelines as is.
~spot
Le 24/11/2009 18:49, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
On 11/24/2009 12:44 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
So I think decision go to FPC and must be written in the PHP Guidelines
Choice : 1- package must use only - 2- package must use - at the beginning (php-pear-) and _ at the end 3- package could use - or _ according to packager pref.
Well, the way the guidelines are now is that _ can only be used as part of the upstream name, and not as a separator. So, if the upstream name is HTML_Javascript, then the package can be either:
php-pear-HTML_Javascript
or
php-pear-HTML-Javascript
depending on the packager's preference.
Or reviewer choice ?
However,
php_pear_HTML_Javascript is not acceptable, because _ should never be used as a separator.
Unless you're proposing that PHP be excepted from these rules, I'm inclined to simply leave the guidelines as is.
Well, I remove the proposal from the draft.
The 3 others minor change still need FPC approval.
+
~spot
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
2009/11/23 Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com:
The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda:
- pkgconfig autorequires:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires
- Revised Emacs add-on guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EmacsPackagingRevised
- man-pages guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Varekova/man-pages/missing-man-pages
- Python3 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python3
A reminder: If you have something that you want to get onto the FPC's agenda, the procedure is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedur...
Did this meeting not happen? I don't see the minutes on the wiki..?
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:21:50 +0000 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com wrote:
Did this meeting not happen? I don't see the minutes on the wiki..?
It did:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-12-02/fedora-meeting.20...
kevin
2009/12/4 Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:21:50 +0000 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com wrote:
Did this meeting not happen? I don't see the minutes on the wiki..?
It did:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-12-02/fedora-meeting.20...
Ahh, thank's Kevin.
Is this the new way minutes are being posted for FPC? If so, it'd be worth adding a link from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes
to the meetbot site.
J.
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 09:11:49PM +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
Ahh, thank's Kevin.
Is this the new way minutes are being posted for FPC? If so, it'd be worth adding a link from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes
to the meetbot site.
Updated. Thanks for mentioning the problem.
I'll see if we can start using the #meetingname command so we get the logs in a packaging subdirectory as well.
-Toshio
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jonathan Underwood -
Kevin Fenzi -
Paul Howarth -
Ralf Corsepius -
Remi Collet -
Susi Lehtola -
Tom Callaway -
Toshio Kuratomi