Proposed Changes to PHP Guidelines

[Remi Collet]

Proposed Changes to PHP Guidelines that need to be reviewed or ratified
by the Fedora Packaging Comittee and FESCo :

The changes
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FPHP&dif...

The result
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP

Regards

[Draft][RFC] The use of alternatives

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

Hi all,

Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should
eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives

I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution.
I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd
prefer the Provides: solution.

What do you think?

Regards,
R.

-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

[Draft][RFC] The use of alternatives

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>  Hi all,
>  
>  Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should
>  eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:
>  
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives
>  
>  I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution.
>  I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd
>  prefer the Provides: solution.
>   
If the only con of the %ghost solution is that it conflicts with "files
owned by multiple packages are forbidden" I would prefer that.  This is
similar to the current exception to allow multiple packages to own the
same directory when they are not in a hierarchical relationship.  We
would need to note this reasoning (or link to this) on the Conflicts page.

-Toshio

[Draft][RFC] The use of alternatives

[Rex Dieter]

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should
> > eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives
> >
> > I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution.
> > I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd
> > prefer the Provides: solution. 
>  If the only con of the %ghost solution is that it conflicts with
> "files
>  owned by multiple packages are forbidden"  
I would advocate the use of %ghost.  It works, provided the contents of 
all the targets are the same, ie, if they all use:
touch /far/bar

Conflicts will arise to simply highlight pkgs not following the 
convention (ie, being a valuable debugging tool).

-- Rex

[Draft][RFC] The use of alternatives

[Syed Omer Farooq]

how to postfix mysql rpm install in fedora 10
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rex Dieter" <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt;
To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" 
<fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com&gt;
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] [Draft][RFC] The use of alternatives


>  Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should
> >> eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:
> >>
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives
> >>
> >> I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution.
> >> I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd
> >> prefer the Provides: solution.
>
> > If the only con of the %ghost solution is that it conflicts with "files
> > owned by multiple packages are forbidden"
>
>  I would advocate the use of %ghost.  It works, provided the contents of 
>  all the targets are the same, ie, if they all use:
>  touch /far/bar
>
>  Conflicts will arise to simply highlight pkgs not following the convention 
>  (ie, being a valuable debugging tool).
>
>  -- Rex
>
>  --
>  Fedora-packaging mailing list
>  Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

[Draft][RFC] The use of alternatives

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 20:03, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  >Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>  >>Hi all,
>  >>
>  >>Here's a draft that - after deciding which solution is best - should
>  >>eventually be put into Packaging Guidelines:
>  >>
>  >>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives
>  >>
>  >>I tried to list all pros and cons of each solution.
>  >>I'm personally hesitating between using %ghost or Provides:, but I'd
>  >>prefer the Provides: solution.
>  
>  >If the only con of the %ghost solution is that it conflicts with "files
>  >owned by multiple packages are forbidden" 
>  
>  I would advocate the use of %ghost.  It works, provided the contents of 
>  all the targets are the same, ie, if they all use:
>  touch /far/bar
>  
>  Conflicts will arise to simply highlight pkgs not following the 
>  convention (ie, being a valuable debugging tool). 
Sounds good to me.

Thanks for the comments. I'll incorporate them in the draft and present
it later for approval.

Regards,
R.

-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"