[opensuse-packaging] openSUSE Packaging Guidelines Update
On the opensuse-packaging mailing list, we've recently formed a team that will take care of the packaging guidelines and introduced a small process to change them: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process As part of that process, we're announcing regularly the changes to the packaging guidelines. Since this is a first such announcement, it is not a complete change but just points out a few things from the past few months. In the future, we will send out this email once a month. The Packaging guidelines can be found at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines . List of changes =============== 1) New Lua Guidelines 2) Reworked font guidelines 3) Documenting changes in packages 4) Teams involved, contact Details ======= 1) New Lua Guidelines We now have guidelines for lua: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Lua. 2) Reworked font guidelines The packaging of fonts has been completely changed, and is documented at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Fonts 3) Documenting changes in packages The openSUSE review team is now also enforcing proper documenting changes in packages: First, the .changes entry (rpm changelog) surves two purposes: - News for the user - History tracking of packaging changes (often referenced in bugs to verify if a user has the latest packaging bugfixes). 3.1) Information about updates A simple "Update to version x.y.z" is, as before, not accepted. There should be some buzz around the update for the user; some major reasons to the upgrade should be listed. Changes on the package itself should be mentioned in a way that any other contributor to the same package can follow traces of why something is the way it is. Commonly, Added (build)dependencies are interesting to be seen, special hacks to make something work in a particular way [..]: Always consider that package maintenance is a distributed task and various contributors need to be able to step up at will. 3.2) Documenting patch life cycle The rules about patches are listed at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Patches_guidelines . Most prominent is likely the mentioning of the patches life cycle, which forces you to mention additions and removals of patches in the changelog. As history shows, this can be helpful if a patch got removed, and later a regression is reported; finding out when a patch was removed can be crucial in reconstructing feature sets (including contacting the contributor that dropped it.. which is easily extracted from the .changes if listed) The main appeal is to the devel project maintainers / reviewers, to keep out for those rules, to live according to them, as it is frustrating for everybody if a package needs to be declined by the openSUSE Factory Review team: - The dev prj maintainer is the one getting the 'decline' (as it was usually a forwarded request), which often leaves the 'fixing' to the devel project maintainers, where the 'originator' of the fix would have been willing to actually do that... Note: The review team is not enforcing the usage of patch markup unless the package already follows this convention. 4) Teams involved, contact I mentioned two teams previously, these are the openSUSE review team (details at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:OpenSUSE_review_team) and the team taking care of the guidelines (details at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process#Team_mem...). You can reach both via the openSUSE-packaging mailing list. On behalf of the teams, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 07 November 2012 10:13:18 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
3) Documenting changes in packages
The openSUSE review team is now also enforcing proper documenting changes in packages:
First, the .changes entry (rpm changelog) surves two purposes: - News for the user - History tracking of packaging changes (often referenced in bugs to verify if a user has the latest packaging bugfixes).
3.1) Information about updates A simple "Update to version x.y.z" is, as before, not accepted. There should be some buzz around the update for the user; some major reasons to the upgrade should be listed.
Changes on the package itself should be mentioned in a way that any other contributor to the same package can follow traces of why something is the way it is. Commonly, Added (build)dependencies are interesting to be seen, special hacks to make something work in a particular way [..]: Always consider that package maintenance is a distributed task and various contributors need to be able to step up at will. Hi Andreas,
Maybe you could give some examples of what is accepted and not ? I had a discussion last night with Dominique (DimStar) on this with regards to the KDE 4.9.3 upgrade. The only information that is available is a webpage where the bugfix release is announced (http://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.9.3.php). In the changelog I am mentioning the link. Is this enough or is a more detailed log of the changes per package required ? In that case I am afraid that we are no longer able to ship KDE updates as that this would cost too much time to dive into git repositories to see what exactly has changed and what not. Regards Raymond -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:01:48 +0100
Raymond Wooninck
Is this enough or is a more detailed log of the changes per package required ?
Maybe the one that came with idea to pep up rpm change log with user interesting information should assign few readers and couple of writers to you that will be able to add buzz, while you can continue what they can't - do packaging. While Andreas correctly picked up that from discussion, it is not reasonable requirement. * Users don't read change log. * Users seldom read help and manuals. * I'm one of not many inclined to read technical stuff, and I don't like belle arte in technical docs. -- Regards, Rajko. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting Raymond Wooninck
Maybe you could give some examples of what is accepted and not ? I had a discussion last night with Dominique (DimStar) on this with regards to the KDE 4.9.3 upgrade. The only information that is available is a webpage where the bugfix release is announced (http://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.9.3.php). In the changelog I am mentioning the link.
As discussed yesterday, *some* information might be welcome / appreciated. I do see that KDE is not that 'nice' when it comes to make useful release announcements, but it might be at least a 'minimal' effort to translate https://bugs.kde.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=2011-06-01&chfieldto=Now&chfield=cf_versionfixedin&chfieldvalue=4.9.3&cmdtype=doit&order=Bug+Number&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= into some entries in .changes (this could give people an idea if bugs they had seen were fixed) This link is referenced in the release notes linked by you. Dominique (No: Packaging is NOT supposed to be a 5 minute job on the side!) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Andreas, Andreas Jaeger (aj@suse.com) wrote:
On the opensuse-packaging mailing list, we've recently formed a team that will take care of the packaging guidelines and introduced a small process to change them: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process
As part of that process, we're announcing regularly the changes to the packaging guidelines. Since this is a first such announcement, it is not a complete change but just points out a few things from the past few months. In the future, we will send out this email once a month.
The Packaging guidelines can be found at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines .
That sounds great! I'm quite new to most of this, but I just wanted to mention / confess that in the last few days I have been attempting to improve http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Ruby based on discussions on opensuse-ruby. There are still some unanswered questions which hopefully will be resolved very shortly. I very much like the idea of enforcing policy by extending rpmlint; however it seems that some people are happy to ignore rpmlint warnings :-/ I guess the badness numbers could be tweaked to deal with this. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 11/07/2012 12:53 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Jaeger (aj@suse.com) wrote:
On the opensuse-packaging mailing list, we've recently formed a team that will take care of the packaging guidelines and introduced a small process to change them: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process
As part of that process, we're announcing regularly the changes to the packaging guidelines. Since this is a first such announcement, it is not a complete change but just points out a few things from the past few months. In the future, we will send out this email once a month.
The Packaging guidelines can be found at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines .
That sounds great!
I'm quite new to most of this, but I just wanted to mention / confess that in the last few days I have been attempting to improve
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Ruby
based on discussions on opensuse-ruby. There are still some unanswered questions which hopefully will be resolved very shortly. I very much like the idea of enforcing policy by extending rpmlint; however it seems that some people are happy to ignore rpmlint warnings :-/ I guess the badness numbers could be tweaked to deal with this. The review team does look at rpmlint issues but mostly we tend to explain why we would like to have them fixed but let the package pass anyway if it's only about minor ones. And I wouldn't want to change this inclusive approach, since sometimes people even react to our humble suggestions ;-)
BTW. we do decline packages when (even minor) rpmlint pile up to level that isn't acceptable anymore (subjective, off course). -- With kind regards, Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:53:50 Adam Spiers wrote:
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Jaeger (aj@suse.com) wrote:
On the opensuse-packaging mailing list, we've recently formed a team that will take care of the packaging guidelines and introduced a small process to change them: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process
As part of that process, we're announcing regularly the changes to the packaging guidelines. Since this is a first such announcement, it is not a complete change but just points out a few things from the past few months. In the future, we will send out this email once a month.
The Packaging guidelines can be found at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines .
That sounds great!
I'm quite new to most of this, but I just wanted to mention / confess that in the last few days I have been attempting to improve
Great!
based on discussions on opensuse-ruby. There are still some unanswered questions which hopefully will be resolved very shortly.
Could you introduce the change on this mailing list as well and ask for additional feedback, please?
I very much like the idea of enforcing policy by extending rpmlint; however it seems that some people are happy to ignore rpmlint warnings :-/ I guess the badness numbers could be tweaked to deal with this.
Yes, that's a separate discussion to have, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Andreas Jaeger (aj@suse.com) wrote:
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:53:50 Adam Spiers wrote:
I'm quite new to most of this, but I just wanted to mention / confess that in the last few days I have been attempting to improve
Great!
based on discussions on opensuse-ruby. There are still some unanswered questions which hopefully will be resolved very shortly.
Could you introduce the change on this mailing list as well and ask for additional feedback, please?
I did already ask some people for feedback, but sure - here's an official "public" request :) These are my current changes: http://en.opensuse.org/index.php?title=openSUSE%3APackaging_Ruby&action=historysubmit&diff=55791&oldid=55737 Hopefully they're self-explanatory. There are still other things I want to document, but they are blocked on the outcome of various discussions including an active thread on opensuse-ruby, e.g. http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-ruby/2012-11/msg00039.html -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Andreas, I have added page about Common Lisp packaging: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Lisp I think we don't have so many Lisp packagers (also as Lisp programmers), but this topic is very interesting for me and I would like to help to make openSUSE more and more interesting for the Lisp developers community. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 11/07/2012 10:18 PM, Alex Naumov wrote:
Hi Andreas,
I have added page about Common Lisp packaging: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Lisp
The idea AFAIK is/was to discuss first here then create the page, this system being a wiki does not change this fact and at the end anybody can copy Fedora stuff ie Rationale: There is some overlap between Lisp library names and existing Fedora packages. a) Use of asdf There is no package as cl-asdf other than your home repo which does not set the standard. b) common lisp controller While the idea is good we need to have the basis before and discuss how to do it rather than cut copy paste approach
I think we don't have so many Lisp packagers (also as Lisp programmers), but this topic is very interesting for me and I would like to help to make openSUSE more and more interesting for the Lisp developers community.
Then you should be happy that factory has sbcl now and racket will follow soon ;) Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Togan Muftuoglu
On 11/07/2012 10:18 PM, Alex Naumov wrote:
Hi Andreas,
I have added page about Common Lisp packaging: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Lisp
The idea AFAIK is/was to discuss first here then create the page, this system being a wiki does not change this fact and at the end anybody can copy Fedora stuff ie
Rationale: There is some overlap between Lisp library names and existing Fedora packages.
a) Use of asdf
There is no package as cl-asdf other than your home repo which does not set the standard.
First - we haven't Common Lisp standard until now (I hope we can start discussion about it), and second - this package is also Free and Open Source Software , so you are welcome to contribute :)
b) common lisp controller
While the idea is good we need to have the basis before and discuss how to do it rather than cut copy paste approach
I think we don't have so many Lisp packagers (also as Lisp programmers), but this topic is very interesting for me and I would like to help to make openSUSE more and more interesting for the Lisp developers community.
Then you should be happy that factory has sbcl now and racket will follow soon ;)
SBCL I have already and Racket != Common Lisp ;) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 16:21:49 Alex Naumov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Togan Muftuoglu
wrote: On 11/07/2012 10:18 PM, Alex Naumov wrote:
Hi Andreas,
I have added page about Common Lisp packaging: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Lisp
The idea AFAIK is/was to discuss first here then create the page, this system being a wiki does not change this fact and at the end anybody can copy Fedora stuff ie
Rationale: There is some overlap between Lisp library names and existing Fedora packages.
a) Use of asdf
There is no package as cl-asdf other than your home repo which does not set the standard.
First - we haven't Common Lisp standard until now (I hope we can start discussion about it), and second - this package is also Free and Open Source Software , so you are welcome to contribute :)
Alex, start the discussion here, please: Write a new email with subject "Common LIsp packaging" and introduce what you want to see done - and then let's discuss, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Hi again, Adam Spiers (aspiers@suse.com) wrote:
Andreas Jaeger (aj@suse.com) wrote:
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:53:50 Adam Spiers wrote:
I'm quite new to most of this, but I just wanted to mention / confess that in the last few days I have been attempting to improve
Great!
based on discussions on opensuse-ruby. There are still some unanswered questions which hopefully will be resolved very shortly.
Could you introduce the change on this mailing list as well and ask for additional feedback, please?
I did already ask some people for feedback, but sure - here's an official "public" request :) These are my current changes:
Hopefully they're self-explanatory.
There are still other things I want to document, but they are blocked on the outcome of various discussions including an active thread on opensuse-ruby, e.g.
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-ruby/2012-11/msg00039.html
I have done some more substantial updates to http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Ruby IMHO it is now a lot closer to being complete and up to date, but I would welcome reviewers. I have not made any changes to existing policy (in fact that would be difficult anyway, because there wasn't really much hard policy existing before) but have instead tried to explicitly document things which have been mentioned in mailing list discussions and also include some helpful tips for issues which packagers are likely to encounter. Adam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (8)
-
Adam Spiers
-
Alex Naumov
-
Andreas Jaeger
-
Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar
-
Rajko
-
Raymond Wooninck
-
Sascha Peilicke
-
Togan Muftuoglu