Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)

[Honza Horak]

On 11/22/2013 05:25 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 04:52:33PM +0100, Honza Horak wrote:
>> On 11/19/2013 06:46 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>>    * ACTION: everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to
>>>      enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to
>>>      the mailing list this week  (abadger1999, 17:37:44)
>>
>> So for me I'd like to see our WG to revisit Packaging guidelines and
>> properly differentiate between MUST requirements and
>> SHOULD/NICE_TO_HAVE practices. After then, we could come up with a
>> tool/process/something to enforce to use it.
>>
> This would be an anti-goal of mine for this WG.  What we've found in the FPC
> is that packagers want to have MUSTs.  Nearly everytime we've made Should
> requirements packagers start screaming at each other about who's doing it
> right with one side saying "The packaging guidelines say you should do it
> this way" and the other half saying "The packaging guidelines don't tell me
> I must do it that way".

I had to express myself un-clearly, because what you're saying is very 
similar to what I meant. Having the guidelines simple and un-ambigous 
with clear MUST statements was the goal I'd like to achieve. The rest 
not-MUSTs could be removed from guidelines entirely and grouped them 
under "best practices" section for example.

> Additionally, just to be clear, re-organizing the packaging guidelines would
> be a welcome thing to do in conjunction with the Packaging Committee.  But
> I would be very much against us going outside of the currently normal
> process of proposing a draft, let the packaging committee approve or reject
> the change.

Right, that seems reasonably.

>> What I personally would like to do is to create a proof of concept
>> tool which would check the guidelines (similar to fedora-review tool,
>> but with different scope + general API for another arbitrary checks
>> like API compliance, ...). It should be run-able locally, on server,
>> remotely against repository.. If that would be helpful, then I'll try
>> to get it integrated into fedora QA infrastructure.
>>
> pingou might be a good contact for talking about fedora-review as a basis
> for this.  tflink would probably be the contact for inegrating into fedora
> QA infrastructure.

Thanks.

Honza

>
> _______________________________________________
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
>