[opensuse-packaging] Yet Another Policy: No new packages in STABLE
Hi, Many people complain about Factory lacking dependencies on update. Most often this is due to new packages not yet being legally reviewed. So we discussed two policy chances (and will act on it after this email): - package splits / renames won't be reviewed in the future. For this clearly mark the split in the changelog. And do not branch packages that are not subpackages (this is _very_ important!). - new packages won't be checked into STABLE unless the base packagage (the name of the .src.rpm) is already reviewed (state production). Submit those packages to BETA and send a mail to suse-dist and only after your package was approved for distribution, submit it to STABLE. You can also submit it to STABLE too so you do not forget about it, but checkin will be delayed. I hope everyone understands the reasons. If not, check bug 365543. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 28 February 2008 16:36:12 wrote Stephan Kulow:
Hi,
Many people complain about Factory lacking dependencies on update. Most often this is due to new packages not yet being legally reviewed.
So we discussed two policy chances (and will act on it after this email):
- package splits / renames won't be reviewed in the future. For this clearly mark the split in the changelog. And do not branch packages that are not subpackages (this is _very_ important!).
- new packages won't be checked into STABLE unless the base packagage (the name of the .src.rpm) is already reviewed (state production). Submit those packages to BETA and send a mail to suse-dist and only after your package was approved for distribution, submit it to STABLE.
You can also submit it to STABLE too so you do not forget about it, but checkin will be delayed.
JFYI, this might get anyway enforced when we do checkin via the build service later (not that fare away anymore ~ 1,5 month ;). And another JFYI for the externals, STABLE is a suse internal name for Factory. You see the obvious reason, why selected a different name externaly ;) bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) email: adrian@suse.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:36 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
- package splits / renames won't be reviewed in the future. For this clearly mark the split in the changelog. And do not branch packages that are not subpackages (this is _very_ important!).
Just to be sure I understand: 1. branching foo-devel from foo is ok 2. branching foo-extra-package (assuming it's an entirely different package, building from its own spec in its own working directory, etc) from foo is not ok 3. branching foo-doc from foo-devel is ...? Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Michael Wolf wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:36 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
- package splits / renames won't be reviewed in the future. For this clearly mark the split in the changelog. And do not branch packages that are not subpackages (this is _very_ important!).
Just to be sure I understand:
1. branching foo-devel from foo is ok
yes, as long as you adapt the necessary fields in PDB like summary and description.
2. branching foo-extra-package (assuming it's an entirely different package, building from its own spec in its own working directory, etc) from foo is not ok
3. branching foo-doc from foo-devel is ...?
probably okay as long as foo-doc and foo-devel stem from the same specfile. The original idea is to branch foo-doc from foo, but going the detour via foo-devel (which was normally branched from foo) is alright. (but remember my comment to 1.) -- with kind regards (mit freundlichem Grinsen), Ruediger Oertel (ro@novell.com,ro@suse.de,bugfinder@t-online.de) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Linux Fatou 2.6.24.1-4-default #1 SMP 2008/02/14 16:18:52 UTC x86_64 Key fingerprint = 17DC 6553 86A7 384B 53C5 CA5C 3CE4 F2E7 23F2 B417 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
Am Donnerstag, 6. März 2008 schrieb Michael Wolf:
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:36 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
- package splits / renames won't be reviewed in the future. For this clearly mark the split in the changelog. And do not branch packages that are not subpackages (this is _very_ important!).
Just to be sure I understand:
1. branching foo-devel from foo is ok
2. branching foo-extra-package (assuming it's an entirely different package, building from its own spec in its own working directory, etc) from foo is not ok
3. branching foo-doc from foo-devel is ...?
Basically everything is ok that does not involve another tar. If you have new sources integrated into a package, you need another legal review. Normally this would apply to version updates as well, but we're defaulting to "will be ok" there and only veto and revert them if it turns out to be wrong. Greetings, Stephan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Adrian Schröter -
Michael Wolf -
Ruediger Oertel -
Stephan Kulow