-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
a.badger at gmail.com
Fri Jun 4 03:34:39 UTC 2010
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 04:50:39AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > I'm not going to oppose you on the ground that enrico has written good
> > packages; I'll oppose you on the groupnd that it's not the job of Fedora
> > to prevent people from providing functionality above the minimum.
> The problem is that the mandatory functionality (SysV-style initscripts
> compliant to our guidelines) gets pushed to a subpackage to make room for
> the optional and completely unneccessary junk, and that in some cases yum
> prefers the nonstandard subpackages.
> Plus, he's also violating other guidelines, e.g. for this package:
> Version contains a SVN revision tag which MUST be in Release instead
> according to our guidelines. (Thanks to Chen Lei for pointing that out.)
> (And look at the mess that nonstandard versioning made to the bumping tool
> spot used, see the insane Release values it produced. We have versioning
> rules for a reason.)
<nod> Like I say, I'm not replying to points regarding whether enrico is
doing good or bad packaging. I'm replying to the quoting of a section of the
Packaging Guidelines as supposed support for banning other initscripts.
To reiterate, there is no such ban in the Packaging Guidelines.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100603/df690b61/attachment.bin
More information about the devel