Hey, Here are some notes about the packaging guidelines BoF we had on Wednesday, at the openSUSE Conference. It'd be great to reflect what seems to have been agreed in our documentation. Any volunteer for that? Cheers, Vincent ===== Our packaging guidelines documentation - lots of discussion about the effort that was started a while ago to merge with Fedora - rough agreement that we should try to push the parts we both agree on (ie, most of the documentation) upstream, at rpm.org - needs to be discussed with Fedora Having a smaller set of groups - possibly use the same set as Fedora - improve spec-cleaner to do the automatic replacement - need to drop the groups view in the yast software installer Patch tags - long discussion about the merits of tags in the .spec file and inline description inside each patch - Recommendation (not enforced): use patch tags in .spec file as it makes things easier to review, and it's easier to jump in a package. However, in the end, it's up to the maintainer to choose the way he prefers - Rule: choose at least one of tags in .spec file or inline description, so that patches are described. - Rule that should be enforced: whatever patch guideline is used by a package, it should be applied consistently. This means: if you update a package using one approach, please use the same approach. Shared library packaging policy - we have a whitelist of packages that don't have to move to SLPP. That's blocking the enforcement of SLPP. - robjo will update the whitelist so that it tracks a list of packages/versions, instead of a list of packages; that means when a new version of a whitelisted package arrives, SLPP should be applied. - Reminder that it's wrong to obsolete an old version of the library: libfoo2 should not obsolete libfoo1. -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org