[Fedora-packaging] [Proposal] Packaging guidelines/spec per version

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 13.3.2013 16:47, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 04:26:41PM +0100, V??t Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 13.3.2013 16:18, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 01:12:00PM +0100, V?t Ondruch wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be possible to have packaging guidelines versioned by
>>>> Fedora version?
>>> It is and we already do.  For instance, the java guidelines which have
>>> differences depending on how the tools in the relevant Fedora release are
>>> implemented/available.
>> We should be more specific about that.
>>
>> For example, it should be clear that if I am packaging new .macros
>> file for F19, it should go into /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d without other
>> conditions. Now, it is small remark squeezed into brackets, which
>> will be skipped when you skim through the guidelines.
>>
>>>> If this would be accompanied by the rule, that .spec
>>>> files can't be shared as well (using some conditions), this would
>>>> allow us to have much faster evolution of our packaging. I'll give
>>>> you a few examples.
>>>>
>>> This is a non-starter, I'm afraid.
>> Yes, unless you provide any rationale behind your statement, it
>> cannot start even discussion I am afraid.
> Excellent.   /me does his share to prevent flamewars for the day.
>
> Hint: I don't have time for this discussion for the next two weeks, (I'm at
> a conference), but if you do, you can raise just this aspect on devel list
> and see what happens.... warning, I expect it to quickly degenerate into a
> highly unproductive shouting match.

This is nothing urgent which would need your immediate attention. If you 
can find time in two weeks, that's fine with me.

I started here, because I think here is more focused group of people and 
we can distill some proposal which could make it through review on 
-devel, FESCo, etc.

<flame>
Actually, it is quite normal that governing body comes with rule 
proposal and people then decide if that is feasible for them. Not sure 
how it comes that for packaging it should be opposite.
</flame>

Thanks


Vít