Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jfearn@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/documentatio...
SRPM URL: http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/documentatio...
Description: Tool chain to convert DocBook XML in to multiple output formats.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |427479, 427480
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
huzaifas@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |huzaifas@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From huzaifas@redhat.com 2008-01-04 01:40 EST ------- This what rpmlint has to say: [root@dhcp1-17 ~]# rpmlint documentation-devel-0.26-1.fc9.src.rpm documentation-devel.src: W: invalid-license GPL
I feel GPL+ is a better option.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-04 04:21 EST ------- I feel the name is a bit too generic.
How about something like docbook-build-tools?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-01-06 18:12 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1)
This what rpmlint has to say: [root@dhcp1-17 ~]# rpmlint documentation-devel-0.26-1.fc9.src.rpm documentation-devel.src: W: invalid-license GPL
I feel GPL+ is a better option.
Spec file updated.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2008-01-07 06:48 EST ------- jfearn, Can you make package name to docbook-build-tools?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-01-07 17:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4)
jfearn, Can you make package name to docbook-build-tools?
This system is being used in production systems within Red Hat and has been for some time. It would take a very well presented argument to get me to consider renaming this package.
Cheers, Jeff.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-01-07 17:45 EST ------- What kind of argument? It is much too generic. The package name space has to be shared by all the packages and there are a lot of packages that could have that name.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
mhideo@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhideo@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-07 18:18 EST ------- Jeff/Patrice,
Any way to tell if anyone else is using that name?
- Mike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-01-07 18:28 EST ------- No way. But it isn't a reason to begin to use too generic names.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-08 18:52 EST ------- Guys,
What is the precedence for renaming a community package and the naming guidelines?
- Mike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |427482 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-08 23:29 EST ------- I guess docbook-build-tools wouldn't be an good name anyway...
Having thought a little more about it and looked at the package more here are my thoughts on the naming: - first I think the initial reaction to the name from the Fedora point of view is that there are problems with both words in the name: - "documentation" is vague: it can refer to many different things ranging from readme files under %doc, to manpages, to info or html included in the source (which might one day be generated using this package if they care for docbook), or manuals in docbook which I think is the main target of this package: we have lacked good documentation in Fedora to date. :) - the "devel" suffix is usually not used for tools but subpackages of libraries with development files associated with C libraries, etc. - I looked at our package naming guidelines and they were vague on this case.
But to give an extreme example it is a little like starting a new project for a browser (or an editor) and calling it "browser" (or "editor"). "documentation-devel" is better than that of course, but naively it seems it could be made a bit less generic without loosing its generality.
I understand the Red Hat Docs team have been using this package name internally for several years and are pretty comfortable with it, and that you want to keep this package generic (in the sense of commodity) to encourage others in the community outside Fedora to use it for their international documentation needs.
If renaming the newly open-sourced project upstream is not an option I might suggest at least adding some suffix, eg documentation-devel-tools, to make the name slightly less generic. I think it would be ok for the package to obsolete or provide documentation-devel for backward compatibility if necessary.
It might help also to see an example package that shows how it would be used to get a better idea about it. And to hear of about any plans to push documentation to fedora, etc to get a bigger picture. :)
If this package is positioned as the cornerstone of our documentation infrastructure it might still be reasonable to keep a pretty general name.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-08 23:38 EST ------- If the license is actually "GPL 2 or later", the license tag should be "GPLv2+".
docbook-xsl is big and it should really be in a separate package IMHO.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-01-09 03:26 EST ------- The upstream name is not right to begin with. I don't know about a precedent, but I myself ask upstream to change their name when it is to short or too generic (I did that for g2lib, so far they haven't acted, but I did what I could). I also made that recommendation for ht.
But here it is easily done since you are also upstream. The name of the package is part of the 'quality' of the package and having a name too generic seems to be to me a good enough reason not to include it in fedora. There are no precise guidelines about what makes a package unsuitable for inclusion in fedora (except for license guidelines), but having a package that abuses the shared namespaces (package name, library name, binary in /usr/bin name) is in my opinion a reason sufficient to block a release if upstream is under the fedora umbrella.
In any case please try to think at your software name from the perspective of free software community (other developers and users) and ask yourself, is my package rightly named?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-09 21:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12)
The upstream name is not right to begin with. I don't know about a precedent, but I myself ask upstream to change their name when it is to short or too generic (I did that for g2lib, so far they haven't acted, but I did what I could). I also made that recommendation for ht.
But here it is easily done since you are also upstream. The name of the package is part of the 'quality' of the package and having a name too generic seems to be to me a good enough reason not to include it in fedora. There are no precise guidelines about what makes a package unsuitable for inclusion in fedora (except for license guidelines), but having a package that abuses the shared namespaces (package name, library name, binary in /usr/bin name) is in my opinion a reason sufficient to block a release if upstream is under the fedora umbrella.
In any case please try to think at your software name from the perspective of free software community (other developers and users) and ask yourself, is my package rightly named?
Hi Patrice/Jens,
Currently the documentation-devel project is #2 in google's pageranking.
Additionally, as requested, here is a link to the project page: https://fedorahosted.org/documentation-devel
Based on the google page ranking metric and the provision of additional project documentation for your review, we formally request the preservation of the documentation-devel name for this project.
Best regards, Mike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-01-10 03:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13)
Currently the documentation-devel project is #2 in google's pageranking.
So what? It is not relevant to the shared named space issue. It may mean that, fortunately nobody else did a package with such a generic name.
I'd say what I said above since you didn't really took it into account: In any case please try to think at your software name from the perspective of free software community (other developers and users) and ask yourself, is my package rightly named?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jwulf@redhat.com 2008-01-10 10:19 EST ------- Hey guys, I've been following the conversation on this package. I've been using it on Fedora for the past year and a half.
A couple of things:
1) Open sourcing this package and contributing it to Fedora will be of great benefit for the state of Fedora documentation. Basically this is the toolchain that is used to produce RHEL and JBoss documentation.
It is a mature project with a significant existing community of users, who have it embedded in their enterprise infrastructure.
Changing the name is not a trivial exercise - the impact is quite high, and open source projects, even commercial ones, are not known for having resources to spare.
This isn't in itself a reason to retain the name in Fedora, but it gives some context to jfearn's concern.
2) In terms of the suitability of the name for the package - I agree that what we're looking at here is a canonical name - like "kernel" or "NetworkManager".
I think that we can make a case for this package to have the canonical name.
There is a missing infrastructure piece for development of documentation for open source software. The fact that this name space is vacant apart from this package indicates the necessity of such a piece. It also indicates that this package speaks strongly to this need, perhaps sufficiently now to answer it, perhaps with some further work. At the very least it is a significant starting point.
The package brings together an end-to-end opensource toolchain that allows open source projects to produce professional documentation, taking several forms of input and outputting html, pdf, manpages, xml, and several other formats.
It produces branded documentation using templates.
It handles multiple language translations.
It's been developed over a number of years and is used in an enterprise setting.
Basically it provides the whole kit and caboodle for professional open source documentation production from source. In terms of Fedora it provides a missing infrastructure piece for documentation production and translations.
In terms of the wider scene it provides a missing infrastructure piece, and so I think that a canonical name is not out of place. Red Hat / Fedora have a history of providing significant plumbing pieces to the community (like NetworkManager).
I think we have a good case for retaining the canonical name, because with this package we have a good, clear shot at the title.
Take a look at what it can do, how extensible it is, and where it fits into an existing gap in the infrastructure scene, and see what you think.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-01-10 10:54 EST ------- No problem, if you find a reviewer who accepts this name, then fine.
I still find that it is a bad name. Saying that there are other names that are badly chosen won't change that. This one especially badly chosen, moreover, in the context of fedora since -devel is consistently used for sub packages headers and .so files used for linking. But, hey that's just my advice.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2008-01-10 11:11 EST ------- Good to have this discussed on fedora-devel then.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-10 19:33 EST ------- As per comment 11, I strongly recommend creating a separate package for docbook-xsl and making this review depend on it so as not to further delay this review.
It may be worth raising the naming issue on fedora-packaging list.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-01-10 20:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18)
As per comment 11, I strongly recommend creating a separate package for docbook-xsl and making this review depend on it so as not to further delay this review.
This package is dependent on this exact version of the xsl and is smaller than many source packages currently in Fedora.
see: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/
It may be worth raising the naming issue on fedora-packaging list.
I think that whole discussion is ridiculous, pointless and a complete waste of time. I'll see if I can convince the manager in question to reconsider this push.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-10 20:55 EST -------
This package is dependent on this exact version of the xsl and is smaller than many source packages currently in Fedora.
I see, ok - I think I overestimated the size going by its inflated size (36MB).
Generally it would be better to use a system package rather than carrying your own copy of it, but if it is really necessary perhaps an exception can be made for now since at least it is not a binary library.
I think that whole discussion is ridiculous, pointless and a complete waste of time.
Well it may seem so to people outside the fedora packaging project, but making an OS is a serious business. With over 5000 packages currently in the distro we need some rules and conventions to prevent pollution of the namespaces. Learning and accepting those conventions is a requisite to joining and working with the project. However I point out that no final decision on the name has been made yet, it is still under discussion.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@math.uh.edu
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2008-01-10 21:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
As per comment 11, I strongly recommend creating a separate package for docbook-xsl and making this review depend on it so as not to further delay this review.
This package is dependent on this exact version of the xsl and is smaller than many source packages currently in Fedora.
see: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/
It may be worth raising the naming issue on fedora-packaging list.
I think that whole discussion is ridiculous, pointless and a complete waste of time. I'll see if I can convince the manager in question to reconsider this push.
I don't think so. If people will start thinking and implementing their own packaging guidelines then we don't need any policies/committees to discuss any issues in fedora. Saying so I think question has been raised on fedora's work, its policies.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-10 21:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
As per comment 11, I strongly recommend creating a separate package for docbook-xsl and making this review depend on it so as not to further delay this review.
This package is dependent on this exact version of the xsl and is smaller than many source packages currently in Fedora.
see: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/
It may be worth raising the naming issue on fedora-packaging list.
I think that whole discussion is ridiculous, pointless and a complete waste of time. I'll see if I can convince the manager in question to reconsider this push.
Hey, Jeff.
It's cool. We'll get it sorted out.
I really appreciate everything you have done for open-source in the last 3 years. You have created a toolchain that has enabled the 48 folks using it to generate more open-source content than any other project in the history of open-source. You have done things that no-one else has done and you did so without ever drawing attention to yourself and your immense contributions.
There are a 179 make files that need to be edited and 4117 documentation sets in 23 languages that need to be recompiled. I know it is non-trivial and a world of work to re-do 2 years worth of work in 2 days.
Let me check the community of use around the documentation-devel package and see what their thougths are on taking this burden completely on themselves to redo.
Thank you again, Jeff and apologies to the Jens/Patrice/Parang for the distraction. Honestly had no idea the impact this name would have on fedora.
- Mike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mmcallis@redhat.com 2008-01-10 22:18 EST ------- I think this is a tribute to how great Jeff's package actually is. No one is complaining that 'the package does not do this', or 'if I run this command it breaks everything', no, people are just complaining about the name.
If this happens everytime someone wants to push a package into Fedora, then it's a good thing Red Hat does not, and never will, control open source, otherwise nothing would ever be released, and everyone would debate package names all day :(
Not that it matters what I think, but I think if it was pushed into Fedora, then a few people would start using it and see how great it is, the word would spread, and no one could care what the name is.
If documentation-devel is such a horrible name, run "rpm -qa" and see what else is allowed.
Thanks,
Murray.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
afitzsim@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |afitzsim@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From afitzsim@redhat.com 2008-01-10 22:23 EST ------- I do not find the naming dilemma to be an issue.
Given the google juice the phrase documentation devel already has and the specialized nature of the package, any name will work.
This is a tool Intended for technical documentation developers (not first time FOSS users) so we really have no blocking need to specify a brandable project name.
That said, I would have supported renaming had it been a trivial move, but I see it will not cause great enough a confusion to warrant its non-inclusion from F9 on this grounds.
What would greatly disappoint, is not getting this package into Fedora 9.
documentation-devel could greatly serve the content community by bringing a quality publishing tool to books for many free software projects.
I know both inkscape and gimp documentation certainly need the improvements this package can offer.
The name space is free, the tool is useful lets get this innovation to the fedora community ASAP.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From irooskov@redhat.com 2008-01-10 22:38 EST ------- Personally I, like everyone else here, believes that this package will be a great asset to the open-source community and that in the end the name (though I understand and respect convention) probably isn't going to be the largest concern.
It's a tool for creating and developing professional documentation and if the name at the moment isn't considered fitting then I propose that the name should be simple and clearly relate to the product.
DocCommander, DocTools, something simple and easy to remember.
The most important thing I can see though is to actaully release the package into the open source community so as long as it gets there, sooner rather than later, the name doesn't seem that important to me personally.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
wtogami@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From wtogami@redhat.com 2008-01-10 22:53 EST -------
If this happens everytime someone wants to push a package into Fedora,
This is a gross misrepresentation of reality. The vast majority of package reviews go through without the need to consult a committee for clarification or advice.
What would greatly disappoint, is not getting this package into Fedora 9.
Nobody is disputing this fact. Furthermore, it would likely be easy to get it into F8 immediately after review approval too.
Have you considered the possibility that this desired name really is problematic for the global community namespace? It especially feels wrong to me because it clashes with the long established convention of *-devel for library header packages. We have always tried to avoid requiring any *-devel package for non-development (usually meaning building binaries) operation.
I understand the desire to keep the name used internally for years, but is it really such a huge burden to choose a different name?
My personal opinion: *anything* that isn't *-devel is fine.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From daobrien@redhat.com 2008-01-10 22:58 EST ------- I don't see the name as a huge issue either. Admittedly I've been bitten by oddly named packages in the past, but I just learn and continue. Given the traction that this package has already, and the effort required to rename it, I suggest leaving it as-is.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From ccheng@redhat.com 2008-01-10 23:09 EST ------- As long as it works, the name is not an issue to me at all.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2008-01-10 23:13 EST ------- As discussed on IRC with Warren, good to name this package as DocumentationKit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From wtogami@redhat.com 2008-01-10 23:37 EST ------- *-devel is treated special in a few ways:
- It is *wrong* for runtime packages to depend on *-devel packages. *-devel packages are for We fix bugs like that in the distro all the time. - rpmdev-rmdevelrpms attempts to remove *-devel for this purpose. - *-devel is special in that it is assumed to be multilib by the repository creation tools.
Is it really a huge amount of effort to rename it? Is simple string search and replace to a new name really such a huge burden?
I suggested DocumentationKit as a possible good name. It satisfies both the *-devel problem and "documentation" genericness namespace issue, and it goes along with the other StudyCaps names ending in *Kit.
Perhaps you could think of a better name. But PLEASE don't use *-devel.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From lbrindle@redhat.com 2008-01-10 23:43 EST ------- The main arguments against documentation-devel seem to be that it is "too generic" and doesn't fit existing convention.
Being "too generic" is not, in this case, necessarily a bad thing. Documentation-devel is a very broad tool. Not only is it broad now, but it has the capacity to become even broader. The name is certainly canonical, as jwulf stated, but so it should be - no other tool exists that is like it (afaik).
Convention is rather a loose term - particularly in FOSS. The existing documentation on what is considered 'conventional' varies greatly from project to project and, as mentioned by jens peterson in comment #10 "our package naming guidelines ... were vague on this case." With that in mind, documentation-devel is a set of tools for the development of documentation - this seems logical to me.
Add to this the fact that the name is not being used, the fact that the name is commonly known in the society (evidenced by the Google ranking) and the fact that it has been used under this name for a lengthy period of time.
Having a 'too generic' name could impact some users, most though would search on the term 'Documentation' and, through great Google rankings, will find the tool they're after. Changing the name at this stage *will* negatively impact a large body of users. From a cost/benefit perspective, having a 'too generic' name is a small price to pay.
Perhaps we should be concentrating on the tool and not the name. It is a fantastic tool that I have been using for nearly six months now, and from the feedback I have had there is a definite need for it to be released to the wider community. We all owe a debt of gratitude to jfearn, not the injustice of squabbling over the name of the thing.
The principal of FOSS is that we all get to take part in the development and use of tools that simply wouldn't be available otherwise. Why are we getting hung up because a name is "too generic"?
The tool works, and the community want it. Let's concentrate on getting it out there and we can bicker over it later.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From wtogami@redhat.com 2008-01-10 23:56 EST ------- Convention to me is even a bigger reason than genericness. As described above there are REAL technical reasons why the *-devel convention makes this a very poor package name.
I personally don't care about the genericness part. I do care about the *-devel convention. Please choose anything else.
Furthermore, I have yet to see a legitimate reason why renaming this package would be such a burden beyond the emotional desire to keep it only because it was named such internally in the past.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-11 01:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #30)
*-devel is treated special in a few ways:
- It is *wrong* for runtime packages to depend on *-devel packages. *-devel
packages are for We fix bugs like that in the distro all the time.
I think I understand the point of view. This documentation-devel package is used to development documentation rpms. In that sense, documentation-devel is not the runtime, but contains the files needed for you to develop the resulting runtime (documentation). Whether it is developing code or words, it is all poetry.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From irooskov@redhat.com 2008-01-11 01:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #33)
Whether it is developing code or words, it is all poetry.
Ah poetry, is there anything more beautiful? Anyway, I understand the POV that you're coming from and in that sense it is nice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
sundaram@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sundaram@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From sundaram@redhat.com 2008-01-11 02:35 EST ------- Even if packages are used for development, they cannot end with "-devel". It is called gcc and not gcc-devel for example. Besides they are numerous occasions where a package that ends with "-devel" is excluded. A few examples
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/8/FinalTreeTesting
"Make sure default install doesn't include -devel packages"
Look at the default kickstart files that are used to generate the GNOME and KDE live images. They automatically exclude *-devel. In short any package that ends with -devel is assumed to contain development files (headers et all) and not development tools in various places throughout Fedora and making an exception just for this package is unwieldy. You just have to call it something else.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From opensource@till.name 2008-01-11 04:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #33)
I think I understand the point of view. This documentation-devel package is used to development documentation rpms. In that sense, documentation-devel is not the runtime, but contains the files needed for you to develop the resulting runtime (documentation). Whether it is developing code or words, it is all poetry.
Hoy about rpmdev-doctools as a new name? There is also a rpmdev-tools package in Fedora, which is afaik developed by Fedora maintainers.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-11 05:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #35)
Even if packages are used for development, they cannot end with "-devel". It is called gcc and not gcc-devel for example. Besides they are numerous occasions where a package that ends with "-devel" is excluded. A few examples
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/8/FinalTreeTesting
"Make sure default install doesn't include -devel packages"
Look at the default kickstart files that are used to generate the GNOME and KDE live images. They automatically exclude *-devel. In short any package that ends with -devel is assumed to contain development files (headers et all) and not development tools in various places throughout Fedora and making an exception just for this package is unwieldy. You just have to call it something else.
Thank you Rahul,
Excellent read and I understand that now. It is okay not to include this in the default install. That being the case, is it okay to keep the name -devel?
Cheers, Mike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From sundaram@redhat.com 2008-01-11 06:12 EST -------
"Default install" is a a fuzzy concept in the bright new world of Fedora spins.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CustomSpins
If I do a Fedora Documentation Spin, I might very well want to include this software out of the box as the functionality it brings is much needed in the documentation team which I am part of. I would suggest that naming not be dependent on whether it is currently the default in one of the spins we release.
Again, the software is good and we would very much want it to be part of the Fedora 9 release. We only need to agree on a better naming convention to suit our guidelines. May I suggest DocsKit?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-11 07:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #38)
"Default install" is a a fuzzy concept in the bright new world of Fedora spins.
That's the one! Our target is to create a custom spin for documentation writers, publishers and syndicators with a series of tools. I am most excited about the docbot project which is another top level package of -devel. But i need more time for that one. The command line environment that -devel sets up will suffice for now.
If I do a Fedora Documentation Spin, I might very well want to include this software out of the box as the functionality it brings is much needed in the documentation team which I am part of. I would suggest that naming not be dependent on whether it is currently the default in one of the spins we release.
Again, the software is good and we would very much want it to be part of the Fedora 9 release. We only need to agree on a better naming convention to suit our guidelines. May I suggest DocsKit?
What I am trying to avoid is a respin of the top level packages that -devel has created for us in the past. There are 179 top-level projects that reference -devel in their makefiles for their development. There are 48 owners of these top level packages we are servicing. Not impossible, but expensive to do. It will cost about $9k per day and we project a 2 day shutdown for the respin if everything goes right. But i know something will go wrong, things always do. I want to minimize risk.
There are a lot of names we could use, I suggest Jeff Fearn's birth-city of Liverpool to honour his commitment. When we polled the top level package owners, all hell broke loose and the names kept coming and coming and coming. The community of use around this -devel package can be very creative and some times too much creativity can be bad thing.
So Jeff, if you are reading this, will not call it "pants".
- Mike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-11 07:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #32)
Furthermore, I have yet to see a legitimate reason why renaming this package would be such a burden beyond the emotional desire to keep it only because it was named such internally in the past.
Hi Warren,
Remember the Library of Alexandria project that I talked about 2 years ago? Well this is it and you know we're crazy enough to pull it off with the custom spins. This wombat has a purpose and a direct intention.
Jim is right, what long term value is Ubuntu generating for open source by their violation of the law. Power and privledge cannot move a people *if* they stand in the law.
Whatever it takes, get us on the battlefield!
- Mike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From svenkate@redhat.com 2008-01-11 09:12 EST ------- As pnemade suggested, I too feel some thing like DocumentationKit suits well for this. *-devel sounds quite raw to me!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From pkennedy@redhat.com 2008-01-11 15:35 EST ------- Personally, I don't care what it is called as long as it works properly. If we must rename it to avoid the -devel connotation, then lets keep it simple. For example "DocKit", if it does not infringe on another product or project name.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From slevine@redhat.com 2008-01-11 16:21 EST ------- The name of the package does not affect what I need to do, so the there are no immediate ramifications to me if the name changes or stays the same.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From wtogami@redhat.com 2008-01-11 16:40 EST ------- Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) discussed this during the FUDCon Friday, Jan 11th 2008 meeting. FESCo strongly suggests changing the name due to the *-devel reason. Additionally, packaging guidelines will soon more explicitly spell out the rules regarding -devel.
After a name change, it will be fairly easy to get this review done.
There is broad agreement that this needs to be included in Fedora 9.
Will this easily work on Fedora 7 and Fedora 8 as well? What about RHEL5? (It could be added to EPEL5.)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mmcallis@redhat.com 2008-01-11 19:40 EST ------- To demonstrate how naive and ignorant I am: what would happen if we kept using the name "documentation-devel" internally, but respun the package with a new name for Fedora (that would not get used internally)?
- Murray.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From rc040203@freenet.de 2008-01-11 22:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #45)
To demonstrate how naive and ignorant I am: what would happen if we kept using the name "documentation-devel" internally, but respun the package with a new name for Fedora (that would not get used internally)?
Your RH-internal business is not of any importance and irrelevant to Fedora.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
mhideo@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CANTFIX
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-12 10:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #46)
Your RH-internal business is not of any importance and irrelevant to Fedora.
I understand. Many apologies to all for the distraction.
- Mike 英雄
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
wtogami@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|CANTFIX |
------- Additional Comments From wtogami@redhat.com 2008-01-12 10:23 EST ------- WAIT!!!
This doesn't mean CANTFIX. Simply rename the package. This is important to get into Fedora 9.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From wtogami@redhat.com 2008-01-12 10:26 EST -------
Your RH-internal business is not of any importance and irrelevant to Fedora.
While this is technically true, this could have been written in a more tactful and sensitive way.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2008-01-12 10:28 EST ------- Michael, Any reason to CLOSE this as CANTFIX? You just need to come up with some good name that will not contain -devel and simply rename Summary here and submit package for review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-13 20:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #50)
Michael, Any reason to CLOSE this as CANTFIX? You just need to come up with some good name that will not contain -devel and simply rename Summary here and submit package for review.
1. Can someone 'own' this bug? 2. Can you put a pointer to the package naming guidelines?
Naming is out in the community, early leads are:
Endoculator Documentation-Devil DocumentationDevel
Although we have the ability to support 4711 packages, we have actually only compiled 2838 rpms with the devel package. We're going to need more time to get the show on the road. We should still be good for F9. We'll re-open this bug then.
- Mike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-13 20:43 EST -------
- Can someone 'own' this bug?
Someone will take the bug when they agree to review the package, that is the usual procedure. Anyway don't worry plenty of people are watching this bug now. :)
- Can you put a pointer to the package naming guidelines?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
Naming is out in the community
Cool.
You can continue using this bug for the review (that is normal procedure for submitted packages that get renamed).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-14 02:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #52)
- Can someone 'own' this bug?
Someone will take the bug when they agree to review the package, that is the usual procedure. Anyway don't worry plenty of people are watching this bug now. :)
10-4
- Can you put a pointer to the package naming guidelines?
You need to document the implications of the reserve word "-devel" so others do not make the same mistake I did. This law is not written above. I will stand in the law so that those with the power and privilege can protect me.
Naming is out in the community
Cool.
You can continue using this bug for the review (that is normal procedure for submitted packages that get renamed).
Will do.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From kwade@redhat.com 2008-01-14 11:15 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) ... some questions and points.
I look forward to finally being able to see this toolchain, and I'm sure many of us will review it for use or replacement of existing parts of the Fedora Docs tools/infrastructure. Major kudos to Jeff, whose work I've long admired and benefited from. This package arrives at a good time for tech review as we revamp parts of documentation production with the help of Fedora Infrastructure.
My comments here have the caveat that I have not done a full feature review of the toolchain, so I am plainly curious what it provides that is missing in the existing toolchain and infrastructure. Especially, what is provided that the community has been asking for. If we can answer these questions here, we can save others from having to do the deep research themselves. :)
It is a mature project with a significant existing community of users, who have it embedded in their enterprise infrastructure.
Is this community entirely internal to Red Hat? That may explain why no one had access to the Fedora collective consciousness about *-devel for namespaces, which is one of those things no one wrote down because, "Everyone knows it." :)
The package brings together an end-to-end opensource toolchain that allows open source projects to produce professional documentation, taking several forms of input and outputting html, pdf, manpages, xml, and several other formats.
It produces branded documentation using templates.
It handles multiple language translations.
It's been developed over a number of years and is used in an enterprise setting.
Basically it provides the whole kit and caboodle for professional open source documentation production from source.
Sounds like the existing Fedora Docs Project toolchain. It does all those things. One difference, it was developed by volunteer contributors working from the Fedora community, so I reckon it hasn't nearly the same amount of features. For example, I'm sure it outputs better PDFs since I know Jeff has done a lot of work at making passivetex and FOP spin and hum.
In terms of Fedora it provides a missing infrastructure piece for documentation production and translations.
In terms of the wider scene it provides a missing infrastructure piece,
Confused here -- we've an existing toolchain that does all this, all built and hosted within Fedora over many years. What is missing?
Fedora Infrastructure hasn't come forward yet and said they are missing any of these functions. Nor has anyone else from the Fedora community, with the exception of prettier/unbroken PDFs.
think that a canonical name is not out of place. Red Hat / Fedora have a history of providing significant plumbing pieces to the community (like NetworkManager).
The exception is, those pieces were developed initially in the open, which is one way to avoid unfortunate namespace problems.
Ironically, we often point to NetworkManager as a lost marketing opportunity, since common credit for "first use" went to other distributions. If this doc toolchain package is going to so significantly change the landscape for free documentation, we have missed the chance to publicize its development. Let's not miss any further opportunities.
Finally, big +1 to the idea of a content development spin. Huzzah! Let us know on fedora-docs-list if you want any community contributors and testing.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jwulf@redhat.com 2008-01-14 14:16 EST ------- I knew about the *-devel namespace thing, since I've been a Fedora user since 1.92, and I knew that this hurdle would come up. Of course, my opinion didn't carry much weight because it's an undocumented convention, and they were doing things by the book.
It's a good point that it isn't written down anywhere. Warren made some nice technical observations that could serve as a basis for making this into an explicit policy.
I'd imagine that since this package already has a significant community around it once it gets included in Fedora we'll find a lot of those people more active in Fedora. Being "internal" to Red Hat doesn't make you any less of a community member. I was a Fedora user before I joined Red Hat, and I'll be one after I'm gone.
As far as the name for the package goes, when considering a package name, as seasoned hands know, the overriding consideration, beyond all technical concerns, and especially when you're talking community, is "how will it look on a t-shirt?"
I'd definitely wear a t-shirt with "Endoculator" on it, and someone sent me a logo proposal for "Documentation-devil", which I'll attach to the bug. I've already ordered a t-shirt from Cafe Press. Even it doesn't end up as the package name, it can be a momento of this bug. :-)
Get yours here: http://www.cafepress.com/cp/customize/product.aspx?clear=true&number=%20...
So I'm +1 on Endoculator or documentation-devil for a package name.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jwulf@redhat.com 2008-01-14 14:16 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=291615) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=291615&action=view) proposed documentation-devil logo from teh community
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
kwade@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kwade@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From kwade@redhat.com 2008-01-14 15:08 EST ------- Lightweight reply while I'm adding myself to the Cc:; ignore if you wish. :)
(In reply to comment #55)
I knew about the *-devel namespace thing, since I've been a Fedora user since 1.92, and I knew that this hurdle would come up. Of course, my opinion didn't carry much weight because it's an undocumented convention, and they were doing things by the book.
It's a good point that it isn't written down anywhere. Warren made some nice technical observations that could serve as a basis for making this into an explicit policy.
We started work on the Fedora Get Involved Guide (GIG) this week:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Drafts/GetInvolvedGuide
... which is what Paul's (Frields) "Developer Guide" hackfest session turned in to. One shakeout from this should be finding similar holes and assumptions in the packaging process, which comprises a majority of the GIG content. I'm certain the missing content about the *-devel convention is going to get fixed now. :)
I'd imagine that since this package already has a significant community around it once it gets included in Fedora we'll find a lot of those people more active in Fedora. Being "internal" to Red Hat doesn't make you any less of a community member. I was a Fedora user before I joined Red Hat, and I'll be one after I'm
gone.
Agreed; I didn't meant to imply anything else or to assign different values to different communities. It was an observation that explained the disconnection up to this point.
As far as the name for the package goes, when considering a package name, as seasoned hands know, the overriding consideration, beyond all technical concerns, and especially when you're talking community, is "how will it look on a t-shirt?"
Darn tootin'!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-01-14 16:12 EST ------- (In reply to comment #44)
Will this easily work on Fedora 7 and Fedora 8 as well? What about RHEL5? (It could be added to EPEL5.)
We currently have this building in brew for RHEL 4 & 5.
Some people who use Fedora hook up to our noarch repo for RHEL5 and run those packages on Fedora 7, 8 and Raw Hide. No issues have been reported by those users.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-14 16:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #56)
Created an attachment (id=291615)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=291615&action=view) [edit]
proposed documentation-devil logo from teh community
lol, you JBoss guys crack me up!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From bforte@redhat.com 2008-01-14 19:02 EST ------- A Printer's Devil was an assistant or apprentice to a Printer. They mixed inks, fetched supplies, re-filled type trays, carried paper and generally did all the scut work the Printer didn't want to do anymore.
The term's origins are uncertain with the assistants to William Caxton (who was named Deville) and Aldus Manutius (who was a Moor) both being credited by different sources.
OTOH, printing was also seen as akin to the Black Arts in its early days in Europe (not surprising given the Church's desire to remain the sole source of Truth). Throw in the tendency of printers and apprentice printers to get covered in black ink and the idea they might be devils wasn't a massive leap to mediaeval folk, raised to believe black = bad.
Consequently, the Printer's Devil was sometimes something other than a put-upon worker. It has also referred to an imp which supposedly came out at night and indulged in mischief, re-arranging type trays, moving letters around on already set type and so on.
Both these uses make documentation-devil (or 'Docs devil', to use what I suspect would quickly become the use-name) almost perfect as a package name. Docs devil is an assistant to a writer, doing scut work we don't want to do (and shouldn't have to do) and it's a convenient scapegoat for those magic typos that only appear after the book has gone public.
That this name also preserves, forever, the argument that erupted about the package's name adds appropriate Linux-specific lore. This lore is eminently suitable for adding colour and interest to the introductory chapters of future books documenting Docs devil.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From lbrindle@redhat.com 2008-01-14 19:52 EST -------
That this name also preserves, forever, the argument that erupted about the
package's name adds
appropriate Linux-specific lore. This lore is eminently suitable for adding
colour and interest to the
introductory chapters of future books documenting Docs devil.
... and will form a suitable wikipedia entry in years to come ;)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
ccurran@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ccurran@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From ccurran@redhat.com 2008-01-14 20:04 EST ------- +1 to Loremaster Brian's input.
As for any opposition to devil being in the title there are already plenty of open source projects with the word devil in the title. A quick goole will reveal that or just check this link, http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&type_of_search=soft&a... The horse on that issue has long bolted from the gate.
I've got no issues with the name. We could even append Brain Forte's brief history of printing in Europe to the man for the package.
Can someone just take ownership of this bug so it can get in fedora?
Christoph
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jwulf@redhat.com 2008-01-14 20:04 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=291662) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=291662&action=view) One does not simply "name a package in Fedora", just as...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From afitzsim@redhat.com 2008-01-14 20:11 EST ------- one does not simply rock into mordor! http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/87366880_1b05bf99e2.jpg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From afitzsim@redhat.com 2008-01-14 20:18 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=291664) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=291664&action=view) project image
endoculator are belong to us
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From ccurran@redhat.com 2008-01-14 20:41 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=291667) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=291667&action=view) sparta
Just to carry on with the humourous vein of previous posts.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-14 21:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #62)
Can someone just take ownership of this bug so it can get in fedora?
Please see comment 52. I think the review is currently waiting the submission of an updated package.
Good to see all the openness about the new name. I am not going to express any opinions - though I would recommend something reasonably short and maybe without a hyphen since that would give a stronger identity to the project I believe.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-01-14 21:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #67)
(In reply to comment #62)
Can someone just take ownership of this bug so it can get in fedora?
Please see comment 52. I think the review is currently waiting the submission of an updated package.
Can people please be patient, getting approval to tool around with your production environment takes time.
Good to see all the openness about the new name. I am not going to express any opinions - though I would recommend something reasonably short and maybe without a hyphen since that would give a stronger identity to the project I believe.
I told them Pants was a damn fine name.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-01-15 23:37 EST ------- I note that although a few people have commented on this name being unacceptable, none of those people felt strongly enough to actually update the wiki with the new rules. Updated rules would have been nice to have before considering new names. Rrepackage everything before considering a new name is onerous and could quickly become a very annoying experience.
Having said that, here are links to the new spec file and srpm.
http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/documentatio... http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/documentatio...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-01-15 23:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #69)
Rrepackage everything before considering a new name is onerous and could quickly
Repackaging ... shut up! ;)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2008-01-15 23:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #69)
I note that although a few people have commented on this name being unacceptable, none of those people felt strongly enough to actually update the wiki with the new rules. Updated rules would have been nice to have before considering new names.
Those packaging guidelines wiki pages have ACLs set on them. I think only Fedora Packaging Committee members can commit there.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mhideo@redhat.com 2008-01-16 00:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #69)
I note that although a few people have commented on this name being unacceptable, none of those people felt strongly enough to actually update the wiki with the new rules. Updated rules would have been nice to have before considering new names. Rrepackage everything before considering a new name is onerous and could quickly become a very annoying experience.
Having said that, here are links to the new spec file and srpm.
http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/documentatio...
http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/documentatio...
Jeff,
I see that 15th century literature won out over the 21st century! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Caxton
Andy, when you get a spare cycle can you give us a cool logo, kind of like the devil from: http://www.openi18n.org/ would be great.
The first book to land into fedora should be the Internationalization Guide. W/o i18n, we wouldn't be here!
Cheers, Mike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |petersen@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-16 02:47 EST ------- Thanks for the update. :) Taking this review.
Commenting below on http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/documentatio... since spec file in srpm appears to be slightly older.
Just a few comments for upstream on the tarball: - Are all "Common_Content/common/*/images/*.png" the same? It would save quite a bit of space sharing the images (just a comment though). - It would be nice to preserve timestamps when generating the tarball if possible. - Upstream's docbook-xsl-1.72.0/doc/ is empty. - The latest upstream docbook-xsl is 1.73.2 any plans to update to it at some point? (docbook-style-xsl-1.73.2 is already in fedora) - There is po2xliff in translate-toolkit: dunno how it compares with po2xlf
(these are not blockers - just things to consider upstream)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-16 03:00 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=291829) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=291829&action=view) documentation-devil.spec-1.patch
Some proposed cleanup.
Mostly the package looks ok to me.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-01-16 23:27 EST ------- http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/documentatio... http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/documentatio...
* Thu Jan 17 2008 Jeff Fearn jfearn@redhat.com 0.26-4 - Tidy up %%files, %%build, %%prep and remove comments from spec file. - Added --atime-preserve to tar command
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |documentation-devel - |documentation-devil - |Documentation tool chain |Documentation tool chain
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-17 20:52 EST ------- One more comment about the docbook files: I realised fedora's docbook-dtds provides docbook/dtd-4.5/ so it would be better to use that than ship your own.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-21 00:56 EST ------- As an experiment I tried the following:
$ rpm -q docbook-style-xsl docbook-style-xsl-1.73.2-4.fc8.noarch $ rm -rf documentation-devil-0.26 $ tar zxf documentation-devil-0.26.tgz $ cd documentation-devil-0.26 $ rm -r xsl/docbook $ sed -i -e "s%http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/1.72.0%http://docbook.sourceforge..." xsl/*.xsl $ make docs
and it seems to build ok.
So unless there are any known issues with docbook-xsl-1.73.2 I think it would be safe not to include "xsl/docbook/". It would also reduce the installed size from 34MB to 14MB and reduce the binary package from 7MB to 3MB.
Would it be possible upstream to change the license to be explicitly GPL2? It would be good if there were explicit license headers in the source files.
In fop/ are both font-metrics/ and font-metrics-0.93/ needed? In a way it would be nice if the font metric data could be generated at build time but maybe that could be done later.
It might be better to move the desktop file to a separate file at some point specially if it is going to be translated, or just to include it in the source?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-21 01:02 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=292331) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=292331&action=view) documentation-devil.spec-xsl.patch
Just for reference this is what I used to test the above.
(If "docbook/" goes then it would be good to update "make/Makefile.templates" not to set CATALOGS to point there anymore.)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-01-22 01:28 EST ------- (I guess I don't know enough about xml but the above patch increases the build time from about 30s to about 14min - presumably it is causing it to make network connections, timeouts or such like.)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From bkoz@redhat.com 2008-01-24 10:48 EST -------
Here are some issues that I think should be addressed before this package is pushed out into Fedora:
1) duplication of xsl stylsheets between
docbook-style-xsl-1.73.2-4.fc8 documentation-devel-0.26-1.fc8
Specific files and directories: /usr/share/documentation-devel/xsl/docbook/1.72.0/*
Instead, documentation-devel should depend on docbook-style-xsl and reference those stylesheets.
2) The Red Hat and Red Hat product parts of the Makefile.common should be removed. These belong in the Red Hat specific packages, not in a general thing.
IE:
/usr/share/documentation-devel/make/Makefile.common:
%grep Red Makefile.* Makefile.common:#Makefile for Red Hat Documentation Makefile.common:#Copyright Red Hat Inc. 2006 Makefile.common:ifeq "$(PRODUCT)" "Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux"
3) invalid XHTML for "html" make target. There is already a bug report about this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428931
"By hand" docbook with the current FC8 toolchain validates as XHTML 1.0, so this should too.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
Bug 427481 depends on bug 427480, which changed state.
Bug 427480 Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-TreeBuilder - Perl parser that builds XML trees https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427480
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
Bug 427481 depends on bug 427479, which changed state.
Bug 427479 Summary: Review Request: perl-ParseLex - Perl lexical analyzer. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427479
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-01-31 02:28 EST ------- I am thinking of renaming this package "publican" would anyone have a problem with this?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devil - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-03 19:05 EST ------- Sounds fine to me.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
jfearn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: publican - |documentation-devil - |publication tool chain |Documentation tool chain |
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-02-07 01:05 EST ------- http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican-0.2... http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican.spe...
* Thu Feb 07 2008 Jeff Fearn jfearn@redhat.com 0.27-0 - Use docbook-style-xsl - Update custom xsl to use docbook-xsl-1.73.2 - Remove CATALOGS override - Remove Red Hat specific clause from Makefile.common - Fixed inavlid xhtml BZ 428931 - Update License to GPL2 - Add GPL2 Header to numerous files - renamed from documentation-devil to publican
Bumped the version due to code changes.
I'm pretty sure I didn't miss anything :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-02-07 05:12 EST ------- Source RPM: publican.src: W: invalid-license GPL2 In the source I see that GPLv2+ (all the /bin/*), GPL and GFDL are all mentioned. In the same line, since you are upstream, could you please include the license file(s) in the source ?
Desktop file: vendor should be fedora. Also, I think it is not really nice to dynamically create the desktop file, but that may be just me too picky.
There is no downloadable source. Any chance of having a full URL in the Source tag ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-07 09:53 EST ------- Thanks for the updated package, Jeff.
Yes, thanks Manuel, the license points and source url certainly need to be addressed.
Some more remarks:
The documentation under %_docdir is about 1.2MB in size, so I think it must be moved to a separate subpackage, say publican-docs, along with the desktop file.
Also BTW in F9 the default desktop font is changing from dejavu-lgc-fonts to dejavu-fonts (a superset of dejuvu-lgc-fonts with wider language coverage).
It would probably be good to tag /usr/share/publican/Common_Content/common/*-* with %lang tags too.
(Now that the new project name has been settled, I think it would be worth renaming the project on fedorahosted.org to publican too to be consistent.)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-07 10:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #85)
The documentation under %_docdir is about 1.2MB in size, so I think it must be moved to a separate subpackage, say publican-docs, along with the desktop file.
Sorry doc subpackage should be named publican-doc (according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-07 10:53 EST ------- Here is the formal review (following http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines):
+: good, -: needs fixing, =: needs attention
MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
publican.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt [ok] publican.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL2 [Needs fixing - see above] publican.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided documentation-devel [ok]
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[=] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [=] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [=] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
See comments above: main package and -doc subpackage should mention the license of the documentation and templates.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
As commented earlier.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro.
See suggestion above though.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[-] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
See above posted comment.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [-] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
Must use desktop-file-install
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items: [=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-07 11:07 EST ------- diff -u publican.spec.orig publican.spec
--- publican.spec.orig 2008-02-07 16:20:38.000000000 +1000
+++ publican.spec 2008-02-08 02:01:31.000000000 +1000
@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@ Summary: Common files and scripts for publishing Documentation
Version: 0.27
Release: 0%{?dist}
-License: GPL2
+License: GPLv2+
Group: Applications/Text
-Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%(id -u -n)
+Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Buildarch: noarch
Source: %{name}-%{version}.tgz
# need kdesdk for po2xml
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ - Update custom xsl to use docbook-xsl-1.73.2: this will break formatting.
- Remove CATALOGS override
- Remove Red Hat specific clause from Makefile.common
-- Fixed inavlid xhtml BZ 428931
+- Fixed invalid xhtml BZ 428931
- Update License to GPL2
- Add GPL2 Header to numerous files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-07 11:11 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=294222) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=294222&action=view) publican.spec-1.patch
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines for BuildRoot and using desktop-file-install.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From kwade@redhat.com 2008-02-07 12:23 EST ------- Curious as to why the GFDL is being used for the -docs? Of course, this is not a Fedora document, and the license choice is at the discretion of the upstream. But if you ever wanted Fedora to publish the how-to documentation included in this package, it needs to be under the OPL without restrictions. If you want to leave that concern for the future, Red Hat (as the copyright holder) can always relicense or dual license. But since you are addressing the licensing in the -brand packages, thought you might want to handle this one at the same time.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-02-07 20:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #90)
Curious as to why the GFDL is being used for the -docs? Of course, this is not a Fedora document, and the license choice is at the discretion of the upstream. But if you ever wanted Fedora to publish the how-to documentation included in this package, it needs to be under the OPL without restrictions. If you want to leave that concern for the future, Red Hat (as the copyright holder) can always relicense or dual license. But since you are addressing the licensing in the -brand packages, thought you might want to handle this one at the same time.
The default license, GFDL, was chosen because the brand packages each use a different free(ish) license and I thought adding one more free license to the mix couldn't hurt :)
My method was to pick one of the "Good Licenses" from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-19fc3ef10add085a28cb06784dc34ef... that wasn't covered by any of the brand packages.
The docs in this package use the default brand & license, thus they get the GFDL.
I'd like to change the default license to Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) v3.0 as it's the only documentation license I could find that is accepted as free by Debian, and so would enable the widest distribution of this package. See http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-07 23:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #85)
It would probably be good to tag /usr/share/publican/Common_Content/common/*-* with %lang tags too.
(Thinking more, I am not really sure if this is a good idea or makes sense: anyway probably not worth doing at this state anyhow.)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-02-11 02:29 EST ------- http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican-0.2... http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican.spe...
Had to bump the version as I had a couple of important bugs to fix :(
* Mon Feb 11 2008 Jeff Fearn jfearn@redhat.com 0.28-0 - Added gpl.txt - Fix GPL identifier as GPLv2+ - Fixed Build root - Fix desktop file - Added Provides for documentation-devel - Fix dist build target - Add dist-srpm target - fix dist failing on missing pot dir - Put docs in sub package - Added GFDL to License to cover content and Book_Template directories. - Included GFDL txt file - set full path to source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From kwade@redhat.com 2008-02-11 08:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #93)
- Added GFDL to License to cover content and Book_Template directories.
- Included GFDL txt file
I want to reiterate a point here because it may save time and hassle in the future if we resolve this now.
You may recall that when the Fedora Project was formed, all the Docs Project work was under the GFDL. This was done as an assumptive move by Project founders, they never asked Legal what license to use, and it turned out to be a mistake. Red Hat Legal (Mark Webbink) required us to re-license all the content, which was a fair bit of work.
It is not clear to me if the upstream of publican (in the form of Red Hat's Content Services team) is actually permitted to use the GFDL. It sounds as if you chose to pick a good license from the Fedora Project list and Red Hat Legal may not have been involved in the license choice?
Based on the previous commit, it sounds as if Book_Template is covered by the GFDL. I can see in the Book_Info.xml file that Common_Content/Legal_Notice.xml is called by the template.
https://fedorahosted.org/documentation-devel/browser/trunk/publican/Book_Tem...
Does that make just the template under the GFDL or ...? If the template is under the GFDL, I'm unclear on how Fedora is going to use the tool. If I use it to make a book for Fedora, but the book *cannot* be under the GFDL due to Legal's previous restrictions, how does the license affect the content I am going to write into that template? If it makes the content GFDL, then that template cannot be used for Fedora content.
This is why I have been advocating across the board usage of the OPL without restrictions for all parts of publican, from the tools to the templates to the branding files. True, there are other licenses that a package can use and have that package be in Fedora (the distro). But if you want the package to be useful to Fedora (the Project), this mix of licenses does not make it clear that it *can* be used.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-02-11 18:50 EST ------- (In reply to comment #94)
(In reply to comment #93)
- Added GFDL to License to cover content and Book_Template directories.
- Included GFDL txt file
I want to reiterate a point here because it may save time and hassle in the future if we resolve this now.
You may recall that when the Fedora Project was formed,
lol Sometimes I think you forget just how long you have been around! I certainly haven't been around that long :D
all the Docs Project work was under the GFDL. This was done as an assumptive move by Project founders, they never asked Legal what license to use, and it turned out to be a mistake. Red Hat Legal (Mark Webbink) required us to re-license all the content, which was a fair bit of work.
It is not clear to me if the upstream of publican (in the form of Red Hat's Content Services team) is actually permitted to use the GFDL. It sounds as if you chose to pick a good license from the Fedora Project list and Red Hat Legal may not have been involved in the license choice?
The default template is not used by the Red hat Documentation Team, they use a different brand licensed under the OPL + Restrictions.
The default brand is intended for use by the general open source community and not Red hat or Fedora specific documentation.
Based on the previous commit, it sounds as if Book_Template is covered by the GFDL. I can see in the Book_Info.xml file that Common_Content/Legal_Notice.xml is called by the template.
Ahhh! Nicely spotted! I should have split out the Book_Template in to each of the brands when I split out the other common content. I will put up new packages today with the per brand Book_Templates.
https://fedorahosted.org/documentation-devel/browser/trunk/publican/Book_Tem...
Does that make just the template under the GFDL or ...? If the template is under the GFDL, I'm unclear on how Fedora is going to use the tool. If I use it to make a book for Fedora, but the book *cannot* be under the GFDL due to Legal's previous restrictions, how does the license affect the content I am going to write into that template? If it makes the content GFDL, then that template cannot be used for Fedora content.
This is why I have been advocating across the board usage of the OPL without restrictions for all parts of publican, from the tools to the templates to the branding files. True, there are other licenses that a package can use and have that package be in Fedora (the distro). But if you want the package to be useful to Fedora (the Project), this mix of licenses does not make it clear that it *can* be used.
publican-fedora is licensed under the OPL, no restrictions, any content that is being used from the main package will be duplicated in to the fedora specific brand package. I think I have it all duplicated now, but i will take another look over it to check again.
Thanks for looking over this package and highlighting things I missed splitting out .. maybe there is something to this "many eyes" philosophy :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-11 23:35 EST ------- Thanks for the update.
- Added gpl.txt
Thanks. This is usually called "COPYING". However the file you included is GPLv3.
- Fix desktop file
Thanks.
- Added Provides for documentation-devel
publican.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-provides documentation-devel
I would suggest just to drop it unless there is a good reason to keep it, in which case it should be versioned (see Packaging/NamingGuidelines).
- Put docs in sub package
Thanks!
- Included GFDL txt file
fdl.txt is missing from the tarball. Please also include it in the doc subpackage.
- set full path to source
The url needs to go in the Source field. The URL field is for the project URL.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-11 23:41 EST -------
Please also include [fdl.txt] in the doc subpackage.
Or what is the license of the docs?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-11 23:43 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=294625) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=294625&action=view) publican.spec-2.patch
some more cleanup suggestions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-02-12 00:48 EST ------- http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican-0.2... http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican.spe...
* Tue Feb 12 2008 Jeff Fearn jfearn@redhat.com 0.29-0 - Setup per Brand Book_Templates - Fix soure and URL paths - Use release in source path - correct GPL version text and changed file name to COPYING - dropped Provides - reordered spec file - added fdl.txt to tar ball. - added fdl.txt to doc package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-12 01:47 EST ------- Thanks
- Use release in source path
I don't really like this. If you want to use subminor versioning that is fine. You can version how you like upstream, but moving the "release" number there just makes things more complicated for fedora and other distros when packaging.
- added fdl.txt to tar ball.
- added fdl.txt to doc package
It would be better to upcase the filename, IMHO. How about just using COPYING.FDL?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-12 01:49 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=294631) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=294631&action=view) publican.spec-3.patch
Please use the desktop scriptslets from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-de6770dd9867f...
Otherwise I think the package looks ok now.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-02-12 02:45 EST ------- Well, I have not read the whole comments of this bug yet, but:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- sed -i -e 's|@@FILE@@|%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/en-US/index.html|' %{name}.desktop sed -i -e 's|@@ICON@@|%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/en-US/images/icon.svg|' %{name}.desktop -------------------------------------------------------------------------- What html and svg files this sed command points to? %{name} is expanded to "publican", not "publican-doc". As far as I checked the rebuild rpms, the files under %_docdir/%name-%version are onlhy 3 files, COPYING, README, fdl.txt.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-02-12 02:48 EST ------- Also:
[Desktop Entry] Name=Publican Comment=How to use Publican Exec=htmlview /usr/share/doc/publican-0.29/en-US/index.html
Requires: htmlview should be added to -doc subpackage? (by the way this should be replaced by xdg-open?)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-02-12 18:09 EST ------- I got great service from the Fedora infrastructure team, so there are new urls for this project. Sorry if this blocked anyone from checking things out.
http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/publican/trunk/Files/publican-0.29-1.fc9.src... http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/publican/trunk/Files/publican.spec
- removed %%post and %%postun as update-desktop-database is for desktop files with mime types - removed release for source path and tar name - fixed package name in desktop file to include -doc - switched from htmlview to xdg-open - Added xdg-utils requires for doc package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-12 19:52 EST ------- Thanks for the update, Jeff.
For the record here is the rpmlint output now:
publican.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 86, tab: line 1)
which you may want to fix before importing to cvs, and:
publican.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt publican.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided documentation-devel
which are ok.
(BTW I filed a bug to have po2xml moved from kdesdk to a separate subpackage to avoid the huge dependency on kdesdk.)
Updating the remaining MUST items from the review in comment 87:
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
8e3b3709c1daad154be9759a6c8ee443 publican-0.29.tgz
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
So AFAICT all review MUST items are now satisfied, and all the major points raised have been addressed I think. I am not a license lawyer obviously, but the licensing seems reasonable enough to me - if there should still be issues with the interactions of the licenses I hope they can be ironed out later if necessary.
Thanks for the review.
Package is APPROVED for inclusion in Fedora.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
jfearn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-02-12 21:26 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: publican Short Description: publication tool chain Owners: jfearn Branches: devel F-8 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: mdious Cvsextras Commits: yes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+, | |fedora_requires_release_note | |?
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-12 21:39 EST ------- cvs admin done
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-13 02:17 EST ------- Jeff imported and build the package for development.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain Alias: publican
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |publican
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain Alias: publican
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-13 02:37 EST ------- While reviewing publican-fedora, I realised it looks like publican should own "%dir /usr/share/publican/Templates/" too.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain Alias: publican
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-13 02:47 EST ------- (In reply to comment #109)
While reviewing publican-fedora, I realised it looks like publican should own "%dir /usr/share/publican/Templates/" too.
Sorry nevermind, it does: I was looking at an older publican package I had installed here. It's all good.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain Alias: publican
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
kwade@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora_requires_release_note|fedora_requires_release_note |? |-
------- Additional Comments From kwade@redhat.com 2008-02-13 14:33 EST ------- We're not likely to make a release note about this.
OTOH, we could talk about making it a feature of Fedora 9, which includes release note information; if we pursue that, we'll track the notes through the feature process:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy
Let's talk about this idea via fedora-docs-list, after we've knocked things around a bit.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain Alias: publican
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From poelstra@redhat.com 2008-02-13 14:50 EST ------- Do things that are only on the media version of the release get release notes?
Yes, a feature page would definitely draw more visibility to this new package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain Alias: publican
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From kwade@redhat.com 2008-02-13 15:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #112)
Do things that are only on the media version of the release get release notes?
Not necessarily. In the past, we gave priority to what was in the main media version. Not sure now where that line is.
In general, we've avoided putting much energy into reporting on every new and interesting package.
Yes, a feature page would definitely draw more visibility to this new package.
I'll rescind my comment that it is not release note worthy; obviously if it's a good feature, it's worthy. I more meant that we don't really have a place (beat) in the notes to cover this area other than "New Feature." We could, though, esp. if we decide to do some kind of Documenter/Publisher Spin.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain Alias: publican
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-02-13 18:50 EST -------
Not necessarily. In the past, we gave priority to what was in the main media version.
Good point.
I more meant that we don't really have a place (beat) in the notes to cover this area other than "New Feature".
Yeah might be nice to have Docs docsbeat at some point anyway. :)
(Anyway this conversation should probably move elsewhere... :)
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla