[opensuse-kde] packaging details for KUP
Dear All, Lately i took the liberty to package some apps in KUP... Yesterday I had the unhappy experience that one of the sr I did to be rejected... I will not enter into the reasons why this particular package was rejected... The situation is that this package had srs accpected by two different reviewers previously. All I did was simple update the source files for it. What I like to be clarified are 1) versioning policy in the .spec file 2) naming of the source files, should they include version number? 3) quantity of comments that should be added in the changelog? I understand that personally we may have strong views on each point... but the community decision should prevail when a package sr is reviewd. regards, Alin -- I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste. -- Marcel Duchamp Without Questions there are no Answers! _____________________________________________________________________ Alin Marin ELENA Advanced Molecular Simulation Research Laboratory School of Physics, University College Dublin ---- Ardionsamblú Móilíneach Saotharlann Taighde Scoil na Fisice, An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address: Room 318, UCD Engineering and Material Science Centre University College Dublin Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://alin.elenaworld.net alin.elena@ucdconnect.ie, alinm.elena@gmail.com ______________________________________________________________________ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday December 28 2010 03:02:07 Alin Marin Elena wrote: <snip />
I will not enter into the reasons why this particular package was rejected... The situation is that this package had srs accpected by two different reviewers previously.
Funny enough I spent like an hour on IRC trying to to explain it to you...
What I like to be clarified are
1) versioning policy in the .spec file 2) naming of the source files, should they include version number? 3) quantity of comments that should be added in the changelog?
1. I don't care how you version your package until it makes sense. 1.1 Name it after upstreams version. 1.2 Name it after some SVN checkout. The whole reason for that mail is cause he (alin) packaged some kbibtex svn checkout as kbibtex.tar.bz2 and I declined it cause I want to have it absolutely clear in the archives name what it is in there - e.g. in that case kbibtex-r424.tar.bz2 for svn rev 424. His argument was that :Playground doesn't adhere to strict guidelines which is fine for more advanced stuff (e.g. clean provides and obsoletes) but there never ever should be any argument about being easily able to identify a packages source and a packages archive defining the source version / revision it contains. And therefore any SVN snapshot should contain its revision number in its archives name and a commented line pointing to the SVN repo where that stuff comes from surely wont harm either. IOW, I consider the above mandatory. regards, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
Dear Stephan,
I am sorry that yoy miss the point. The point is not that one of my
packages got rejected by you...
Here we have a policy issue in which the outcome of a review depends
on the personal taste of the reviewer.
I am sure that at community level we do not want this to happen.
There are people (reviewer) who do not agree with your opinion
regardless if you like it or not... I can give you names but the point
is not that.
The point is simple we identified an inconsistency in our policy
concerning packaging in KUP let us discuss and establish some rules at
community level. Please stop getting it personal.
Personally I find specifying the version in both .spec and the name
of the archive redundant...
regards,
Alin
On 28 December 2010 02:47, Stephan Kleine
On Tuesday December 28 2010 03:02:07 Alin Marin Elena wrote: <snip />
I will not enter into the reasons why this particular package was rejected... The situation is that this package had srs accpected by two different reviewers previously.
Funny enough I spent like an hour on IRC trying to to explain it to you...
What I like to be clarified are
1) versioning policy in the .spec file 2) naming of the source files, should they include version number? 3) quantity of comments that should be added in the changelog?
1. I don't care how you version your package until it makes sense. 1.1 Name it after upstreams version. 1.2 Name it after some SVN checkout.
The whole reason for that mail is cause he (alin) packaged some kbibtex svn checkout as kbibtex.tar.bz2 and I declined it cause I want to have it absolutely clear in the archives name what it is in there - e.g. in that case kbibtex-r424.tar.bz2 for svn rev 424.
His argument was that :Playground doesn't adhere to strict guidelines which is fine for more advanced stuff (e.g. clean provides and obsoletes) but there never ever should be any argument about being easily able to identify a packages source and a packages archive defining the source version / revision it contains.
And therefore any SVN snapshot should contain its revision number in its archives name and a commented line pointing to the SVN repo where that stuff comes from surely wont harm either.
IOW, I consider the above mandatory.
regards, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
-- I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste. -- Marcel Duchamp Without Questions there are no Answers! _____________________________________________________________________ Alin Marin ELENA Advanced Molecular Simulation Research Laboratory School of Physics, University College Dublin ---- Ardionsamblú Móilíneach Saotharlann Taighde Scoil na Fisice, An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address: Room 318, UCD Engineering and Material Science Centre University College Dublin Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://alin.elenaworld.net alin.elena@ucdconnect.ie, alinm.elena@gmail.com ______________________________________________________________________ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2010, 11:41:05 schrieb Alin Marin Elena:
The point is simple we identified an inconsistency in our policy concerning packaging in KUP let us discuss and establish some rules at community level. Please stop getting it personal. Personally I find specifying the version in both .spec and the name of the archive redundant...
If there is an issue with an app the user gets asked "what version do you have installed". I do a simple rpm search which only helps if the version - in this case svn revision - is part of the package's name. Same would happen if users do zypper se or use YaST. In case an app fails to start it would for example be impossible to get that info from the Help > About menu. So since there are no drawbacks of having a version number in the package's name but only advantages, IMHO it should be part of the package-name. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 28 December 2010 12:07:54 Sven Burmeister wrote:
So since there are no drawbacks of having a version number in the package's name but only advantages, IMHO it should be part of the package-name.
I believe that we all agree that we should have a proper version number in the package. So that we can ask an user to do `rpm -q $package` and get a correct version number. However this brings two questions up, namely: 1) If we have a proper version number in the package, does this mean that we also have to give the tarball itself a version number ? Or would it be sufficient to have %{packagename}-git.tar.bz2 or %{packagename}-svn.tar.bz2 ? 2) What kind of version do we give packages coming from a git repository ? This is especially important as that KDE itself is also slowly moving to git instead of SVN. So a commit number is being replaced by a git-string. We could of course use the shortened git-string, however is this really according to the RPM standards? The rpm standards describes that a higher version will replace a package with a lower version. But is the git string always higher than the previous one ? Currently a lot of packages makes use of a date behind the word git (version becomes x.y-gitYYYYMMDD), but how do we indicate if we have multiple updates on that same day ? The last question I also already raised to Will and Dirk, but it would be worth to see what the community thinks about this. Just my 15 cents :-) Raymond -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Alin Marin Elena -
Raymond Wooninck -
Stephan Kleine -
Sven Burmeister