Re: concerns.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:15:22 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:

> > Worse than that. It's missing the point. The different repositories don't
> > advertise any differences between multiple packages of the same
> > software.
> That's what the repository tag in the release is for.

What does a repository/dist tag say about a package feature set?

> And that's what changelogs are for. 

What a great idea! :-/ Let package users search through spec changelogs to
find out whether there's anything special about a package. Because you
and me do that, it should not be *the* recommended way.

> > problems. For Joe User to be able to choose between multiple packages of
> > the same software, he must know whether there are meant to be differences.
> > E.g. but not limited to preconfiguration, desktop integration,
> > initscripts, helper scripts.
> These are all documentation problems, not packaging issues.

Agreed. Now point me to a repository where "added value" is documented
consequently in package descriptions or README files.
> Conditional build options are not cosmetic if you are building for many OS 
> versions.

I didn't say they're bad. Hence I don't understand your comment.

Btw, the build host/target detection and enabling a default set of
conditional build dependencies is an automated process.

> As to formatting, whose format is correct?  Yours?

The spec file syntax decides about the basic structure.

However, if several people should be able to maintain a spec file,
preferably they adhere to a few guidelines.

> That having been said, it would be nice to have a modicum of compatibility; 
> but I am seeing an extended argument on why there has to be only one way to 
> do it, when everybody knows TMTOWTDI.
...and when there's not, why duplicate the packaging efforts?
> V4L2 support).  But I cannot reasonably demand that Axel and Matthias must 
> work together for my convenience if they do not want to work together.  

Uhm, where does this come from? Who demands that?

I think this discussion is fruitless.


Attachment: pgpcjBKw8LXNx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux