[Fedora-packaging] Re: Publican Issues

[Joshua Wulf]

Thanks for your response and suggestions Toshio.

I think it's more venting frustration than actually blaming the FPC for 
being a roadblock.

*Anything* that we can do to resolve these issues, keeping in mind the 
limited resources we are working with and the need to work together and 
forge stronger relationships going forward, will be great.

Josh

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  Joshua Wulf wrote:
>  Thanks Joshua,
>
>    
> > I think that Jeff and Chris are referring to this:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471
> >
> >     
>  IIUC, this boils down to:
>  1) Publican creates a different documentation package for each Fedora
>  Release as it considers them to be separate documents.  ie:
>  Fedora-10-Security-Guide, Fedora-11-Security-Guide.
>
>  2) This means a new package review for each documentation package each
>  release.
>
>  If you're willing to go through a new review each release, there's no
>  problem.
>
>  If you want a single review to cover you for all releases, we need a new
>   Guideline.  I think if it's a potential goal to be able to install the
>  Fedora-10-Security-Guide on Fedora-11, then I'd be against such a
>  Guideline as separate packages really are what you want.  If it's
>  specifically a non-goal to do that, then it's a possibility although
>  changing the name to not have the version in it strikes me as the better
>  option there.  Following onto that, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want
>  to use publican to create an initial spec file and then modify it to
>  meet the specifics of the situation.  This is the workflow for CPAN2RPM,
>  rpmdev-newspetemplate, and other tools.
>
>  Another option is to look at a streamlined set of review items for
>  publican-created doc packages... We've never explicitly done this but in
>  practice, people know they don't have to check, for instance, shared
>  library guidelines when writing and reviewing a pure python module.
>
>    
> > and possibly this as well:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482972
> >
> >     
>  What's the problem here?  That the .desktop is created inline in the
>  spec file instead of as a separate file?  If that's all it is, I can
>  propose to the FPC to amend that.   I can't recall a reason that it had
>  to be included in the SRPM as a file specifically.
>
>  Note that neither of these issues had reached the FPC's radar (they
>  still haven't, really, as I'm only one member and this isn't the
>  packaging mailing list) so blaming the FPC as the roadblock is a bit
>  misplaced.
>
>  -Toshio
>
>     

-- 
Joshua J Wulf
Engineering Content Services
Red Hat Asia Pacific

eml: jwulf(a)redhat.com
tel: [phone]
mob: [phone]
tmz: GMT +10

(0) - omit when dialling internationally