On 09/24/2012 02:36 PM, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar wrote:
Hi Togan,
Quoting Togan Muftuoglu <toganm@opensuse.org>:
Following a mail to the opensuse-buildservice regarding lua packages development <http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-buildservice/2012-09/msg00144.html> I would like to propose the following packaging guidelines for Lua since the projct does not have one.
good initiative and, as such, needs to be supported...
1) The main development should be taking place in devel:languages:lua and therefore devel:languages:misc should be droped as the devel repo for Factory.
you could start this effort by populating the packages (preferably as links to openSUSE:Factory, where they are already pushed). Any package that made it into devel:languages:lua should get a changedevelrequest to have the official devel repo follow the new package.
I would also like to hear from other people, especially who are packaging lua and/or maintainer of the lua packages as well before diving into unknown waters ;)
2) various lua packages that are scattered around the OBS should be developed in devel:languages:lua
Agreed... this would be especially important to be followed by Factory Reviewers, who agree to having a package come from a specific place.
Guidelines for Lua packages
Macros are already defined by the lua and lua51 packages in devel:languages:misc
=> should probably read devel:languages:lua; and so it's not a lie, start with adding the packages there. Once the guideline is documented in the wiki, it would be good for it not to point to 'outdated' repositories.
Yes it should be reflective of the real devel repo and I used d:l:misc since it is the current devel project for factory. If the transition is going to happen then of course the wiki should/would reflect the actual devel repo.
* Addon packages Lua add-on packages should generally follow the naming scheme of lua(version)-PKG_NAME -- e.g.
lua51-luafilesystem -- tobe used with lua version 5.1 lua-luafilesystem -- tobe used with lua version 5.2
This requires definition on when lua(version) vs lua is to be used. How will you handle a lua 5.3 release? Will it get the lua namespace, invalidating all exising 'lua-<pkg>' items, as they would no longer the naming convention? Or will lua 5.3 automatyically become lua53? If so, why the exception for lua 5.2?
You are right on the versioning and at the time being I do not have an answer; hence RFC so it could be enhanced. It is a similar situation with python packages meaning there is python 2.7 and 3.2 and the packaging is a bit complex create a linked package for python3 and work on that spec for python3 etc. Therefore with this proposal I am well aware of the problem, yet I unfortunately do not have an answer :(
* Development Packages Development packages should have devel suffix added to the package name lua(version)-PKG_NAME-devel Example
lua51-luafilesystem-devel
Makes sense. For the guideline (note, I know nothing about lua), it might be beneficial to give some examples of what 'devel' files could be... In C we all know about the files *.so, *.a, *.h...
That would be similar in lua as well since these would be C api related
* Documentation packages If a package has huge documentation or is just a doc package then naming should be lua(version)-PackageName-doc and should be installed to %_defaultdocdir
/usr/share/doc/packages/lua-{PKG_NAME}-doc/*
An advise on 'when a package is huge' can be good here... in any case, it's important to mark documentation as %doc (so rpm --excludedocs knows about it)
Following rpmlint recommendations I would go for Thanks Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org