On Tuesday 02 of February 2016 00:49:46 Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Let me first tell you: I understand your frustration. And the fact that somebody with a project maintainer role oversteps the package maintainer, giving him 5 hours of notice period, is bad behavior. I stronlgy encourage the two of you to talk this out directly.
To be precise, the request was accepted by someone else. But in general, people not actively maintaining a package accepting requests without giving maintainers enough time to react, is kind of pattern I see too often to my liking.
As to the points you list in the 'change set', I only want to give some small words there (from a opensuse-review team perspective - but it's my own, which I hope the rest of the reviewer team shares).
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 00:10 +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
- replace xz compressed tarball by the original gzipped one For years I've been told by OBS that I should repack gzipped tarballs to save resources. It's not true any more? OK, it allows for checking the signature so it makes sense.
Most of the distro packages switched to using the prisitine upstream tarball quite a while ago, especially for checking signatures, and, as I will explain in pioint 3
I guess it wasn't completely clear from my previous mail: this particular change I understand and appreciate. I just wanted to list even the changes I have no objections to so that it didn't look like I disliked everything. Actually, I never liked the policy of recompressing (or even repacking) upstream tarballs.
- make BuildRoot specification unconditional For years I've been told that it is obsolete. The only reason I keep it is to allow build for SLE11. Why forcing it on distributions that don't need it?
It is indeed needed for SLE11; I have no strong pro or contra if it should be provided for non-SLE11 builds, but it's purely used during the build phase, so does not impact the resulting package. So it comes down to: do you prefer a condition without added value in your spec file? Or do you prefer a 'plain' readable one with as few churn as possible. As you stated: it's your package - your choice.
As it does no harm (and it's unlikely to in a foreseeable future), I take the conditional mostly as a reminder that it's temporary and it's going away one day. I guess a comment would be sufficient for that purpose.
- replace source files by full URL I don't like this change. More precisely: I hate it.
It has one big advantage: trust! Every package submitted to openSUSE:Factory, the review bot actually downloads the tarball from the URL in the Source line and verifies that the submitted one actually IS The one it's supposed to be. This avoids that a packager can inject anything into a tarball (as you can imagine, there are not sufficient resources to manually review all the submitted code - we need to be able to trust one another. The URL as Source allows to automate it)/
OK, this changes things. If the URL is actually used for something meaningful, I have no problem with using it.
- add LICENSE to the package OK, why not.
Actually mandatory to pass legal review.
I was afraid so. While I find the overall obsession with licenses a bit sad, I understand that (open)SUSE has to live with it and watch its back.
- reorder tags in specfile header I'm confused. The previous order was what spec cleaner did. Wasn't it supposed to be The Right Order(TM)? And what happens next time spec cleaner service is run? Is it going to change the order back, masking real changes?
Sometimes, new version of spec cleaner might do it different. Only solution is for us all to run the same version of the tool.
Perhaps changing the preferred order only if there is a really strong reason to might help a bit.
I agree that there are quite some questionable changes forced into your package. As an active maintainer, I actually suggest you to REVERT the change and implement the changes you like on your own. Don't play around: You are the maintainer of the package, you care for it. Show it - revert.
I'll revert the changes I object to and probably keep those I only find useless but the result does not particularly bother me (e.g. the tags order).
For me, the important message in this entire thing is to ALL contributors: contribute to any package you want - be active, but if there is a person dedicated to maintain it (and this person is still active): let this person have a word if he/she likes the change. There are 'teams' building around certain packages, where people talk together and come to a common view on how they want to maintain it - so they jointly do the work, sometimes with, sometimes without consulting. There are even larger projects where NO maintainer in the project is supposed to accept his own change! Strict 4-eye peer review even before stuff moves to Factory. This is not mandatory in OBS - but if the active maintainer so wishes, it is to be respected.
Agreed. And I'm glad to hear that. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org