-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 13:52 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
I find it hard to track changes to the Packaging Guidelines, and when
those
changes are made, they sometimes only apply to certain branches (or only to
rawhide), and it's no longer clear which Guidelines apply to other branches.
Few folks proposed to switch guidelines to git[0]. I think if we would have
el6/el7/f26/f27/master branches of guidelines, that would help with this.
[0]
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/727
It would be really useful to have a wiki page outlining where the
Guidelines for stable branches are different to the most recent version of
the Packaging Guidelines (if such a page already exists, please ignore this
and point me to it).
I think Jason Tibbs said somewhere that packaging guidelines are targeting only
rawhide. But I'm not sure if there is sentence written somewhere.
With this information as an authoritative source (current Guidelines
for
rawhide branch, and exceptions/adaptations for other branches and EPEL), we
could start pointing out where .spec files (regardless of the branch) don't
comply (anymore) with the applicable "version" of the Guidelines, and start
to remove conditionals where they can be removed, and to report / fix
issues - with little to no room for differences in "taste" or
"interpretation".
Hmm, we could start versioning guidelines and ask people writing in first line
of spec which guidelines they were complying to. And probably some lints in
fedora-review for this...
I don't this is possible to do in short period of time, but might be good idea
for far future.
Conditionals for current fedora releases aside, checks for releases
that
have reached EOL should be cleaned up as soon as possible anyway (I still
find .spec files referencing fedora 21 or earlier sometimes) ...
A lot of Python packages reference F>=12.
TL;DR:
We need an authoritative source that tells us packagers which Guidelines
apply to which branch (or what has to be done differently - or can be done
better - in, for example, f26 when compared to the current Packaging
Guidelines).
With this information, we can start cleaning up unneccessary or outdated
conditionals in .spec files, and can probably remove all conditionals
(depending on %{?fedora}) altogether - since IMO the maintenance burden and
error-prone-ness of "compatibility" between branches is way greater than
the benefit of being able to "merge" (caveat changelogs, Release tags,
other changes) from newer to older releases.
This will, over time (as changes to rawhide trickle down into what will
become fedora 28/29 and fedora 29/30), lead to much simpler, less
error-prone, and more easily maintainable .spec files (which benefits
maintainers, co-maintainers, provenpackagers, and users).
Independently, I think conditionals for releases older than N-2
(currently: 24 and earlier) should be removed either way, and checks for
fedora < N-1 should be removed after the corresponding release reaches EOL.
Fully agree with what you are saying here!
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=9cBz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----