Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 20:50:31 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer:
Hi,
I'm no Novell employee so probably know all the details but I can try.
Cristian Morales Vega schrieb:
There are some questions I face every time I create a submitreq against a package created by Novell/SUSE.
So you talk about submitreq which should end up in Factory aka the official openSUSE?
a) ready file: If I remember correctly this is imported from the old autobuild. I can and even should remove it, true?
Currently it will reappear AFAIK if you remove it. So something still creates it when it hits Factory.
right, it will go away in future anyway.
b) Changelog: It's common that there is a .changes file but at the same time the spec file has a copy of it. I can and even should remove the changelog from the spec file and continue editing the .changes file, true?
No need to remove the changelog in the spec file since it gets readded automatically when committed to Factory from information in *.changes.
right, actually the replacement of the %changes section happens with each build in any project, if there is a .changes file.
c) The copyright headers: what about them? I suppose they were created automatically... now they just are a problem to me. - Are they really needed??? I would really prefer them to be removed. I don't have any problem asigning copyright to openSUSE or Novell, but if they can be removed it's something less to worry about. If aren't removed - I found one that says "Copyright (c) 2007"... should I change it to "Copyright (c) 2007-2009" or to "Copyright (c) 2009"? Any specific format? I don't really know if it's important from a law POV. - "spec file for package <package> (Version <version>)". I really hate to have an extra place where I need to change the version, it's really needed?
Again once the package goes to Factory all the information and headers are changed. So you don't need to fiddle with it at all since you have no control speaking for Factory.
A copyright header is always set on check in time into Factory. But you should be able to add yourself as Copyright owner and this must not go away.
d) "# norootforbuild". It's normally there. http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/SUSE_Package_Conventions/RPM_Style#1.2._ norootforbuild says it's obsolete. There are places where it's used: http://en.opensuse.org/GNOME/Packaging/Simple_library_package . Just for uniformity, we keep or remove it? What "obsolete" means? Is rpmbuild ignoring it?
norootforbuild is the default so it's not needed anymore. I think there is "userootforbuild" which does the opposite.
Yes, but we do not allow this by default in OBS. We could actually, it would not be a security problem, but we so because source rpms which can build without root permissions are usually less ugly and more trustworthy :) (It is a bad when someone builds a source rpm on his workstation and that one modifies the system somehow).
-) %description... well, this hasn't nothing to do with old Novell/SUSE packages. But since I'm writing this. There is any policy about the line length? I normally use 80 chars lines, manually. Not sure if kwrite/kate can help with this.
I'm not sure but for completeness: For Factory packages you don't have control at all since the description is overwritten with data in some SUSE internal database (as summary and license).
Yes, but this is about to go away. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org