README.Dist is preferrable to README.Fedora

[Patrice Dumas]

Hello,

In
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description

I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
argumentation:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...

--
Pat

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 15:47, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  Hello,
>  
>  In
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>  
>  I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  argumentation:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
+1
I'm not sure if the new name is informative enough, but I don't
have any better alternatives right now.

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"

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 16:07, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>  On Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 15:47, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  > Hello,
>  > 
>  > In
>  > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>  > 
>  > I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  > argumentation:
>  >
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
>  
>  +1
>  I'm not sure if the new name is informative enough, but I don't
>  have any better alternatives right now. 
I have one now: README.package.

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"

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:38:21AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>  
>  I have one now: README.package. 
Agreed, I also think that it is the best one. I have updated
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidi...

(and I have explicitely stated that it is controversial).

--
Pat

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 00:41 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:38:21AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann'
> Mierzejewski wrote:
>  > 
>  > I have one now: README.package.
>  
>  Agreed, I also think that it is the best one. I have updated
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidi...
>  
>  (and I have explicitely stated that it is controversial). 
I don't think
it's controversial. You (or whoever wrote this) made it
controversial.

Do you really think. users finding a README.Fedora are not able to bring
such a README into the appropriate context e.g. on EPEL or on RHEL?

Pedantic packagers could rename such a file (as part of their rpm.specs)
for EPEL or when adopting a package into RHEL. I for one, don't see much
reason to do so.

Ralf

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Patrice Dumas wrote, at 10/25/2008 10:47 PM +9:00:
>  Hello,
>  
>  In
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>  
>  I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  argumentation:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
>   
But README.fedora may be _really_ Fedora specific issue
(e.g. for better performance another files are needed but packaging
 them altogether cannot be done due to Fedora policy, as you and I wrote
 on xtide-common package)

Mamoru

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:11:31PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>  Patrice Dumas wrote, at 10/25/2008 10:47 PM +9:00:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
> >
> > I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
> > argumentation:
> >
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
> >
>
>  But README.fedora may be _really_ Fedora specific issue
>  (e.g. for better performance another files are needed but packaging
>  them altogether cannot be done due to Fedora policy, as you and I wrote
>  on xtide-common package) 
These are not really fedora specific. If I was to review xtide I would
have insisted on this file being called xtide-README.dist. For example
it is also true for EPEL. And it is also certainly true for any
free software distribution. So I think that this is a bug in xtide.

Would you accept patches to correct this?

--
Pat

[Jussi Lehtola]

On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 16:22 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  These are not really fedora specific. If I was to review xtide I
> would
>  have insisted on this file being called xtide-README.dist. For example
>  it is also true for EPEL. And it is also certainly true for any
>  free software distribution. So I think that this is a bug in xtide. 
To me README.dist is too generic - it sounds like it's from upstream.
README.Fedora clearly tells you that the file is Fedora-specific.

Isn't EPEL also part of Fedora? I don't find anything wrong with using
Fedora in EPEL packages. Or, if README.Fedora seems illogical to you to
use in EPEL, make conditionals in the spec file so that the file is
README.Fedora in Fedora and README.EPEL in EPEL.

Of course, if you want to use the same package in other RPM-based
distributions than Fedora/EPEL, then the Fedora suffix is out of the
question.
-- 
Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt;

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 05:41:23PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
>  On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 16:22 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  > These are not really fedora specific. If I was to review xtide I would
>  > have insisted on this file being called xtide-README.dist. For example
>  > it is also true for EPEL. And it is also certainly true for any
>  > free software distribution. So I think that this is a bug in xtide.
>  
>  To me README.dist is too generic - it sounds like it's from upstream.
>  README.Fedora clearly tells you that the file is Fedora-specific. 
But in general those files are not fedora specific. 

That being said I'd have no problem with a file named something else
than README.dist or README.distribution that convey the idea that it is
added by the distributor, and not upstream. What do you propose?

>  Isn't EPEL also part of Fedora? I don't find anything wrong
> with using
>  Fedora in EPEL packages.  
It is confusing at best.

>  Or, if README.Fedora seems illogical to you to
>  use in EPEL, make conditionals in the spec file so that the file is
>  README.Fedora in Fedora and README.EPEL in EPEL. 
That's much too complicated, especially when the file is not really
fedora specific as it is the case in all the cases I have seen.
 
>  Of course, if you want to use the same package in other RPM-based
>  distributions than Fedora/EPEL, then the Fedora suffix is out of the
>  question. 
It is not really the issue here. The point is that these files are in
general not fedora specific, it is not about the intention, but about
the status of the file.

--
Pat

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:11:31PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>  But README.fedora may be _really_ Fedora specific issue
>  (e.g. for better performance another files are needed but packaging
>  them altogether cannot be done due to Fedora policy, as you and I wrote
>  on xtide-common package) 
It may happen, to have something really fedora specific, and not specific 
of a rpm distribution, but I think that this only happens for a tiny 
number of packages. In fact I have never seen this case in real life. So 
it seem to me that the guidelines should address the most common case
which is README.Dist.

--
Pat

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Patrice Dumas wrote, at 10/25/2008 11:25 PM +9:00:
>  On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:11:31PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> > But README.fedora may be _really_ Fedora specific issue
> > (e.g. for better performance another files are needed but packaging
> > them altogether cannot be done due to Fedora policy, as you and I wrote
> > on xtide-common package)
>  
>  It may happen, to have something really fedora specific, and not specific 
>  of a rpm distribution,  
I don't care about other distrubution than Fedora.
Well, the file named "README.Fedora" I wrote is really what I meant
for Fedora. I don't want to take any responsibility for other distrubution.

The maintainers on other distribution may want to reuse what I wrote
for Fedora, but in such case the maintainer (of other distrubution)
must mention:
-------------------------------------------------------
The notes Fedora maintainer writes are also applied to the package
distributed on this distrubition, so I bollowed the notes.

If you see something wrong on this notes please ask "me", not Fedora 
maintainer.
-------------------------------------------------------

Well, I think generally the package maintainer on a distrubution
must write the notes for the distrubution (if any) by his/her
responsibility.

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:54:54AM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>  I don't care about other distrubution than Fedora.
>  Well, the file named "README.Fedora" I wrote is really what I meant
>  for Fedora. I don't want to take any responsibility for other distrubution. 
It is not about taking responsibility or not. It is about the change
being fedora specific or not. If you look at the xtide package, what is
in th eREADME.Fedora is not specific of fedora. It is specific of the
package, sure, but not of fedora.

>  The maintainers on other distribution may want to reuse what I wrote
>  for Fedora, but in such case the maintainer (of other distrubution)
>  must mention:
>  -------------------------------------------------------
>  The notes Fedora maintainer writes are also applied to the package
>  distributed on this distrubition, so I bollowed the notes.
>
>  If you see something wrong on this notes please ask "me", not Fedora  
>  maintainer.
>  ------------------------------------------------------- 
=Only if the license say so, and it currently doesn't.

>  Well, I think generally the package maintainer on a distrubution
>  must write the notes for the distrubution (if any) by his/her
>  responsibility. 
Right, but, in the xtide case, and it is true of all the case I have
come accross, the notes have nothing fedora specific (apart from the
bugzilla adress, and it is in any case not the right place to tell where
fedora bugzilla is). They are linked with how the package is done, but
have nothing fedora specific, really.

--
Pat

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 25.10.2008 15:47, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  
>  In
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>  
>  I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  argumentation:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
I really appreciate the general idea, but I don't like the term  ".Dist" 
to much, as it is a bit misleading imho: some people might think that 
file might contain "informations relevant for distribution of the package".

I thought about a alternative, but all my mind came up with was 
"distribution-specific-notes" -- that has the same problem as noted 
above, but it's imho not that worse. But that filename is quite long :-/

Maybe somebody else comes up with something that is shorter and more 
accurate...

CU
knurd

[Paul Howarth]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:53:42 +0200
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; wrote:

>  On 25.10.2008 15:47, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  > 
>  > In
>  > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>  > 
>  > I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  > argumentation:
>  >
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
>  
>  I really appreciate the general idea, but I don't like the term
>  ".Dist" to much, as it is a bit misleading imho: some people might
>  think that file might contain "informations relevant for distribution
>  of the package".
>  
>  I thought about a alternative, but all my mind came up with was 
>  "distribution-specific-notes" -- that has the same problem as noted 
>  above, but it's imho not that worse. But that filename is quite
>  long :-/
>  
>  Maybe somebody else comes up with something that is shorter and more 
>  accurate... 
I tend to use "README.RPM" or some variant thereof (e.g.
README-SELinux.RPM).

Paul.

[Ville Skyttä]

On Saturday 25 October 2008, Paul Howarth wrote:
>  On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:53:42 +0200
>  Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; wrote:
>
>  > I really appreciate the general idea, but I don't like the term
>  > ".Dist" to much, as it is a bit misleading imho: some people might
>  > think that file might contain "informations relevant for distribution
>  > of the package".
>  >
>  > I thought about a alternative, but all my mind came up with was
>  > "distribution-specific-notes" -- that has the same problem as noted
>  > above, but it's imho not that worse. But that filename is quite
>  > long :-/
>  >
>  > Maybe somebody else comes up with something that is shorter and more
>  > accurate...
>
>  I tend to use "README.RPM" or some variant thereof (e.g.
>  README-SELinux.RPM). 
.RPM sounds a bit like it could be a rpm package whose name is README.  I've 
usually used README.package myself.

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 15:47 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  Hello,
>  
>  In
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>  
>  I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  argumentation:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
-1

Leave such implementation details to the packager's discretion.

Ralf

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:31:34PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 15:47 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  > Hello,
>  > 
>  > In
>  > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>  > 
>  > I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  > argumentation:
>  >
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
>  -1
>  
>  Leave such implementation details to the packager's discretion. 
It is only a (controversial) recommendation and I never wanted to make 
it a guideline. But in most of the case the file is not fedora specific, 
it is pâckage specific so I think it should be reflected in the name.

--
Pat

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 00:20 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:31:34PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  > On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 15:47 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  > > Hello,
>  > > 
>  > > In
>  > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>  > > 
>  > > I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  > > argumentation:
>  > >
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
>  > -1
>  > 
>  > Leave such implementation details to the packager's discretion.
>  
>  It is only a (controversial) recommendation and I never wanted to make 
>  it a guideline. But in most of the case the file is not fedora specific,  
In many cases such READMEs are not distro-specific, either.

>  it is pâckage specific so I think it should be reflected in the name.
Well, I find README.Dist or README.rpm to be more confusing than
helpful.

I prefer README.fedora, README.Fedora or README.first.

Ralf

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 à 05:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :

>  > it is pâckage specific so I think it should be reflected in the
> name.
>  Well, I find README.Dist or README.rpm to be more confusing than
>  helpful.
>  
>  I prefer README.fedora, README.Fedora or README.first. 
In the interest of helping users that just want to double-click on the
thing to read it, I prefer whatever.txt.
-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas
> <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; writes: 
PD> I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist

I disagree.  README.Fedora is a fine name, and is what I always
recommend in review.

 - J<

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:21:22PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas
> <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; writes:
>  
>  PD> I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist
>  
>  I disagree.  README.Fedora is a fine name, and is what I always
>  recommend in review. 
Are these files really fedora specific, or package specific? In most
cases they are package specific, so I think the file name should reflect
that, and also it helps others (or EPEL) reuse spec files.

--
Pat

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas
> <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; writes: 
PD> Are these files really fedora specific, or package specific?

In the case of my packages, or packages where I have recommended the
use of README.Fedora, they indicate specific information on how Fedora
has provided default configurations and any Fedora-specific setup
necessary (such as indicating that a web application has installed an
apache config file restricting access to localhost until default
passwords are changed).

PD> In most cases they are package specific, so I think the file name
PD> should reflect that, and also it helps others (or EPEL) reuse spec
PD> files.

EPEL is a Fedora product, is it not?  If someone wants to lift a
Fedora package and has concerns about such files appearing in it, they
are welcome to rename them.  That's not my business, though.

If someone wants to propose a standard macro which expands to
"Fedora", "EPEL" or whatever a hypothetical Fedora-consuming distro
might wish, then I would happily use it.

 - J<

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:12:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas
> <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; writes:
>  
>  PD> Are these files really fedora specific, or package specific?
>  
>  In the case of my packages, or packages where I have recommended the
>  use of README.Fedora, they indicate specific information on how Fedora
>  has provided default configurations and any Fedora-specific setup
>  necessary (such as indicating that a web application has installed an
>  apache config file restricting access to localhost until default
>  passwords are changed). 
But is it fedora specific, or specific to the setup of the package? In
most case it is linked with how the package is done, but not to fedora,
otherwise said doesn't use any of the fedora specificities. Your example
doesn't seems to use anything fedora specific.

--
Pat

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas
> <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; writes: 
PD> But is it fedora specific, or specific to the setup of the
PD> package?

Now you're just being obtuse.  I wrote the package _for_ Fedora.  It's
a Fedora package.  The information is specific to the default
configuration of the package in Fedora.  The apache configuration file
in my example doesn't come from upstream; it is part of the Fedora
package.  README.Fedora is an entirely appropriate name for a file
explaining that.

 - J<

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:43:28AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas
> <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; writes:
>  
>  PD> But is it fedora specific, or specific to the setup of the
>  PD> package?
>  
>  Now you're just being obtuse.  I wrote the package _for_ Fedora.  It's 
That's exactly my point. It is written for fedora, but is not specific
of fedora. That's why I think it is better to avoid using fedora, but
instead use a word, both more neutral and more appropriate, like
package.

>  a Fedora package.  The information is specific to the default
>  configuration of the package in Fedora.  The apache configuration file
>  in my example doesn't come from upstream; it is part of the Fedora
>  package.  README.Fedora is an entirely appropriate name for a file
>  explaining that. 
It is appropriate, but README.package seems more appropriate to me,
since it is part of the package and it allows to reuse it in other
contexts without having to rename anything (reuse in EPEL, in 3rd party
repo, for local builds and local repository or 'private' repositories
accessible on the web...).

--
Pat

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 26.10.2008 17:44, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:43:28AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III
> wrote:
> >>>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; writes:
> > PD> But is it fedora specific, or specific to the setup of the
> > PD> package?
> > Now you're just being obtuse.  I wrote the package _for_ Fedora.  It's
>  That's exactly my point. It is written for fedora, but is not specific
>  of fedora. That's why I think it is better to avoid using fedora, but
>  instead use a word, both more neutral and more appropriate, like
>  package. 
+1 -- especially with the remixes on the horizon it will get confusing 
if you have "README.Fedora" on a dist called "Foobar" (which is a
remix 
of Fedora; but the user might not know that)

> > a Fedora package.  The information is specific to the default
> > configuration of the package in Fedora.  The apache configuration file
> > in my example doesn't come from upstream; it is part of the Fedora
> > package.  README.Fedora is an entirely appropriate name for a file
> > explaining that.
>  It is appropriate, but README.package seems more appropriate to me,
>  since it is part of the package and it allows to reuse it in other
>  contexts without having to rename anything (reuse in EPEL, in 3rd party
>  repo, for local builds and local repository or 'private' repositories
>  accessible on the web...). 
+1

And Patrice, thanks again for your work driving this issue forward; I 
really appreciate it as I really think it makes a whole lot of sense to 
have a common name scheme. There are often compromises that need to be 
made during packaging that are ideally explained somewhere (like for 
example dropping support for mp3); if we use a common name scheme for 
files that explain these issues then we can just add something like 
"some package contain additional notes for Fedora specific qualities; 
those are explained in a file README.package that is shipped together 
with the docs of each package". Well, not exactly that text, but 
something like that -- you'll get the idea ;-)

Cu
knurd

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:47:55PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  argumentation:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
Urgghh ... a lot of pointless make-work.  What's the point?  Debian
ship 'README.Debian' files.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:22:04PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>  On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:47:55PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  > I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  > argumentation:
>  >
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
>  
>  Urgghh ... a lot of pointless make-work.  What's the point?  Debian
>  ship 'README.Debian' files. 
It is not an obligation it is a recommendation. And it is in general
both more accurate and help others reuse spec files. There are many
packages using README.Fedora in fedora, and what debian does is not
necessarily to be copied.

--
Pat

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:47:55PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  Hello,
>  
>  In
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>  
>  I suggest changing README.Fedora to README.Dist, see for an
>  argumentation:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoidin...
Let's forget about that idea, I thought it was less controversial than
it turned out to be.

--
Pat

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:47:55PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  Hello, 
I have read some (about 30) of the 93 files in fedora packages named
*README*edora*. Some can be considered fedora specific (for example 
those that states that the documentation cannot be installed since it
would conflict with another package), but many are not fedora specific,
but mostly explaination of how the package is different from upstream or
post-install informations.  

In some cases, the bugzilla address or the maintainer address is
included in an otherwise not fedora specific package. I think that it is
wrong, bugzilla and maintainer name should not be communicated in each
package, but globally.

--
Pat