Dne 30.11.2017 v 09:49 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those
who want:
1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem.
I belong to this camp.
Especially if you are a developer of layered application, which is not part of Fedora
itself (Spacewalk, Zimbra, ...),
then Rawhide it too much-moving target and those developers only develop for EPEL and
stable Fedoras and merely a bonus.
No one of those developers actually thinks about Rawhide. There is no capacity for that.
To sum this up, my take on packaging guidelines is that *the
guidelines
should document the most recent practices available in Rawhide and this
should be documented*.
+1
Covering all the exceptions necessary for older
Fedoras (not even mentioning RHEL/EPEL) makes the guidelines unreadable
and what is worse, they slow down entire development of Fedora.
-1
This guideline is not only used by Fedora developers (though it is the target group), but
it is also used by developers
who develop their application on top of Fedora.
Those exceptions are usually not big. Epel is mentioned in main guidelines twice.
Exception for older Fedoras in your
Ruby draft is just three lines plus one snippet. Not big impact for us and on the other
hand, it helps 3rd party
developers a lot.
Versioned Guidelines will not help too much as 3rd party developers do not develop *just*
for Fedora 26. Or *just* for
EPEL 6. What they need is the difference between those versions.
I thought about using a tagged version in History tab, but that does not help. This is a
diff against six months older
version of the same document:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3AGuidelines&ty...
Mirek