RPMGroups -- time to refresh? [was Re: Question about how to announce packages]
Actually, I think it's an excellent question to ask how things like this
(and related subjects) should be organized. I don't think we should be
stuck with categorizations that were defined, by fiat, 5+ years ago.
Much has happened, and a good (better?) characterization tree might be a
good thing for a near-term version of Fedora. Eric Raymond has spoken
that he'd like to present the Trove (http://www.catb.org/~esr/trove/).
I for one think it might be useful to find some happy medium between the
obviously small number of groups defined by
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RPMGroups, the large number defined by the
Trove, those defined implicitly and explicitly by ibiblio, etc. I don't
want this to confound the discussion about how Fedora Collections might
be defined, but I do think that a proper hierarchy of functionality
would help both the archivists, collectors, and applicators of open
source technologies.
M
On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 11:37, Neil Horman wrote:
Silke Reimer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:07:51AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>
>>Silke Reimer wrote:
>>
>>>Hallo list again,
>>>
>>>I just did my self-introduction and immediately I have my first
>>>questions:
>>>
>>>1.
>>>If I want to announce and provide the packages which I produced, is
>>>it necessary to set up a special directory tree on my server
>>>(something like fedora/2/i386/RPMS.unstable etc.) where the packages
>>>are made available for download?
>>>
>>>2.
>>>I am not sure about the right Fedora tree for my packages. Most of
>>>them are stable in my opinion and could placed in testing but since
>>>these are my first Fedora packages I am thinking about to place them
>>>in unstable for the start. What do you think?
>>>
>>>3.
>>>I don't know which official group I should use. For the libraries
>>>this is rather easy. But I don't what to do with GIS software
>>>(perhaps Applications/Productivity). It is even more difficult with
>>>geodata. They don't seem to fit to any group of RH (s.
>>>http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RPMGroups). Any idea?
>>>
>>>Ciao,
>>>
>>> Silke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Check out the QA and Submission policy link at www.fedora.us:
>>http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy
>
>
> OK. This does help for point 1. Sorry for asking this stupid
> question. But I still don't know what to do with 2. and 3. Of course
> I could let this open for the QA-people but I think it does make
> sense to fill in the right values from the very beginning.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Silke
>
>
They aren't stupid questions. :)
2) I think its best left up to you. QA people will comment on what they
think about you're decision when you submit the package. If you aren't
sure as to the stability of your package, I'd put it in unstable. Move
it later, when you feel its ready.
3) I think Applications/Productivity is a fine place to put GIS
software, but again, your decision.
Neil
--
/***************************************************
*Neil Horman
*Software Engineer
*Red Hat, Inc.
*nhorman(a)redhat.com
*gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1
*http://pgp.mit.edu
***************************************************/