Hi
A recent discussion in EPEL about whether README.Fedora would be confusing to EPEL users has brought into forefront what I consider a good packaging guideline for Fedora to follow which is to avoid using the "Fedora" name as much as possible in package names and files with exceptions like "Fedora directory server" and recommend using generic names wherever possible.
This would certainly help in being a better upstream for distribution and other efforts that are based on Fedora including RHEL, EPEL or OLPC.
In this specific instance I believe the guidelines should be mandating README.distribution instead.
Refer to https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-June/msg00064.html for the discussion.
Rahul
On Thursday 28 June 2007 22:54:45 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
A recent discussion in EPEL about whether README.Fedora would be confusing to EPEL users has brought into forefront what I consider a good packaging guideline for Fedora to follow which is to avoid using the "Fedora" name as much as possible in package names and files with exceptions like "Fedora directory server" and recommend using generic names wherever possible.
This would certainly help in being a better upstream for distribution and other efforts that are based on Fedora including RHEL, EPEL or OLPC.
In this specific instance I believe the guidelines should be mandating README.distribution instead.
Refer to https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-June/msg00064.html for the discussion.
Rahul
At what point does this become silly though?
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 22:54:45 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
A recent discussion in EPEL about whether README.Fedora would be confusing to EPEL users has brought into forefront what I consider a good packaging guideline for Fedora to follow which is to avoid using the "Fedora" name as much as possible in package names and files with exceptions like "Fedora directory server" and recommend using generic names wherever possible.
This would certainly help in being a better upstream for distribution and other efforts that are based on Fedora including RHEL, EPEL or OLPC.
In this specific instance I believe the guidelines should be mandating README.distribution instead.
Refer to https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-June/msg00064.html for the discussion.
Rahul
At what point does this become silly though?
Do you want me to define silly or give an example where I consider it silly? I think trying to rename Fedora Directory Server at this point would be silly as opposed to the above request which I consider valid. Do you disagree with that request or the general idea or both?
Rahul
On Thursday 28 June 2007 23:05:32 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Do you want me to define silly or give an example where I consider it silly? I think trying to rename Fedora Directory Server at this point would be silly as opposed to the above request which I consider valid. Do you disagree with that request or the general idea or both?
I think it should be examined at a case by case basis. If the content of a file is not "Fedora" specific then maybe it should be named generically. But if it /is/ Fedora specific, well then...
I don't think we should be putting a lot of effort into disguising the fact that these things are derived from Fedora.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 23:05:32 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Do you want me to define silly or give an example where I consider it silly? I think trying to rename Fedora Directory Server at this point would be silly as opposed to the above request which I consider valid. Do you disagree with that request or the general idea or both?
I think it should be examined at a case by case basis. If the content of a file is not "Fedora" specific then maybe it should be named generically. But if it /is/ Fedora specific, well then...
Right but Fedora directory server isn't really Fedora specific. I can very well run it under any distribution.
I don't think we should be putting a lot of effort into disguising the fact that these things are derived from Fedora.
That is not what I am requesting.
Rahul
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Right but Fedora directory server isn't really Fedora specific. I can very well run it under any distribution.
And is it so bad that people see the name Fedora? I for one would love to see its brand grow.
It's fine where it does not present any problems but it can. Think about Fedora trademarks for example.
If I patch Fedora Directory Server can I call it by that name anymore? We consolidated our branding even in RHEL where some of requests or patches came in from rebuilders like CentOS.
Do you know that we get mails from confused users who mail us about their Apache problems because of the Fedora branding in the default Apache page or the amount of support calls in RHEL on the same topic? These cost us time, effort and money.
In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic names. You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use README.distribution too.
Rahul
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic names. You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use README.distribution too.
That would be unfortunate. README.suse != README.fedora != README.ubuntu....
README.distribution is worse for Fedora users than README.Fedora because it's not telling them that they should read it to understand something specific to the package as it exists on their system. It could just as easily have come from upstream's tarball and be written for upstream's distro as by the Fedora Maintainer for the Fedora audience. The whole point of the file is to tell the user "Hey! I was written specifically for this distribution by the package maintainer to tell you anything special about this software as packaged here."
How much better is README.[generic] for EPEL users and, as Jesse asks, "Do we really want to disguise the fact that these other distributions are Fedora derivatives" are the real questions. I'm leaning towards no on the latter question. As Till Maas notes in the thread you cite, we brand it as Fedora EPEL in bugzilla....
(If I wasn't leaning towards no, I'd probably point out that there are other names that are less generic than "distribution" but encompass both Fedora and RHEL. README.redhat, README.rpm, README.fedoraderivative :-)
-Toshio
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic names. You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use README.distribution too.
That would be unfortunate. README.suse != README.fedora != README.ubuntu....
Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be suited for README.<distro>.
Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora?
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic names. You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use README.distribution too.
That would be unfortunate. README.suse != README.fedora != README.ubuntu....
Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be suited for README.<distro>.
Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora?
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
Rahul
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:34:18AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic names. You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use README.distribution too.
That would be unfortunate. README.suse != README.fedora != README.ubuntu....
Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be suited for README.<distro>.
Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora?
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora.
Not for, but from.
I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
Yes, the end user should hopefully not wonder that EPEL is from Fedora. If so, then he'll hopfully get up to speed, and README.Fedora kicking him off to do so will have been a feature and not a bug.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:34:18AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic names. You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use README.distribution too.
That would be unfortunate. README.suse != README.fedora != README.ubuntu....
Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be suited for README.<distro>.
Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora?
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora.
Not for, but from.
I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
Yes, the end user should hopefully not wonder that EPEL is from Fedora. If so, then he'll hopfully get up to speed, and README.Fedora kicking him off to do so will have been a feature and not a bug.
Seems the emphasis is incorrectly about where the repository is from rather than where it is going to be used in.
Rahul
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:43:43AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:34:18AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic names. You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use README.distribution too.
That would be unfortunate. README.suse != README.fedora != README.ubuntu....
Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be suited for README.<distro>.
Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora?
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora.
Not for, but from.
I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
Yes, the end user should hopefully not wonder that EPEL is from Fedora. If so, then he'll hopfully get up to speed, and README.Fedora kicking him off to do so will have been a feature and not a bug.
Seems the emphasis is incorrectly about where the repository is from rather than where it is going to be used in.
Whether it's "incorrectly" or not is up to the eye of the beholder, and FWIW README.distribution is serving neither side of the grammar. Or is this package really going to be used in a "distribution"? I'm quite sure it will be.
Axel Thimm wrote:
Whether it's "incorrectly" or not is up to the eye of the beholder, and FWIW README.distribution is serving neither side of the grammar. Or is this package really going to be used in a "distribution"? I'm quite sure it will be.
Distribution is just a off hand suggestion. Feel free to come up with a better name like others have suggested.
Rahul
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 05:02:41AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
Whether it's "incorrectly" or not is up to the eye of the beholder, and FWIW README.distribution is serving neither side of the grammar. Or is this package really going to be used in a "distribution"? I'm quite sure it will be.
Distribution is just a off hand suggestion. Feel free to come up with a better name like others have suggested.
How about README.Fedora?
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 05:02:41AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
Whether it's "incorrectly" or not is up to the eye of the beholder, and FWIW README.distribution is serving neither side of the grammar. Or is this package really going to be used in a "distribution"? I'm quite sure it will be.
Distribution is just a off hand suggestion. Feel free to come up with a better name like others have suggested.
How about README.Fedora?
Axel, Don't waste everyone's time.
Rahul
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 08:25 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 05:02:41AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
Whether it's "incorrectly" or not is up to the eye of the beholder, and FWIW README.distribution is serving neither side of the grammar. Or is this package really going to be used in a "distribution"? I'm quite sure it will be.
Distribution is just a off hand suggestion. Feel free to come up with a better name like others have suggested.
How about README.Fedora?
+1
Axel, Don't waste everyone's time.
Rahul, you are wasting our time, by having made an issue from a non-issue. Users aren't as dumb as you seem to think.
Ralf
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 08:02 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 08:25 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 05:02:41AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
Whether it's "incorrectly" or not is up to the eye of the beholder, and FWIW README.distribution is serving neither side of the grammar. Or is this package really going to be used in a "distribution"? I'm quite sure it will be.
Distribution is just a off hand suggestion. Feel free to come up with a better name like others have suggested.
How about README.Fedora?
+1
+2
Axel, Don't waste everyone's time.
Rahul, you are wasting our time, by having made an issue from a non-issue. Users aren't as dumb as you seem to think.
I completely agree. Users aren't dumb.
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Rahul, you are wasting our time, by having made an issue from a non-issue. Users aren't as dumb as you seem to think.
You got to stop assuming what I think of users. If you consider merely asking for comments wasting time you are free to ignore this thread and let people who have constructive suggestions participate. Thanks.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Rahul, you are wasting our time, by having made an issue from a non-issue. Users aren't as dumb as you seem to think.
You got to stop assuming what I think of users. If you consider merely asking for comments wasting time you are free to ignore this thread and let people who have constructive suggestions participate. Thanks.
And if people ignore a thread, then people assume there are no objections and proceed further. Don't discourage criticism.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Rahul, you are wasting our time, by having made an issue from a non-issue. Users aren't as dumb as you seem to think.
You got to stop assuming what I think of users. If you consider merely asking for comments wasting time you are free to ignore this thread and let people who have constructive suggestions participate. Thanks.
And if people ignore a thread, then people assume there are no objections and proceed further. Don't discourage criticism.
Criticism is fine when it is productive. Sarcasm is not.
Rahul
On So Juli 1 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
Where does a user not see Fedora when he looks at EPEL? Bugs go to the "Fedora EPEL" Product on Bugzilla, all documentation is found at http://FEDORAproject.org/wiki/EPEL and repoview at http://redhat.download.FEDORAproject.org/pub/epel/5/i386/repoview/ has the title "Fedora EPEL". So are you sure, that a lot of end users are confused by README.Fedora files?
Regards, Till
Till Maas wrote:
On So Juli 1 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
Where does a user not see Fedora when he looks at EPEL? Bugs go to the "Fedora EPEL" Product on Bugzilla, all documentation is found at http://FEDORAproject.org/wiki/EPEL and repoview at http://redhat.download.FEDORAproject.org/pub/epel/5/i386/repoview/ has the title "Fedora EPEL". So are you sure, that a lot of end users are confused by README.Fedora files?
In places where enterprise distributions are used there is typically a lot of end users running preconfigured locked down systems which might also have EPEL repository enabled. They wouldn't be reporting bugs or installing the repository themselves. I can't really be sure about anyone getting confused at all. I have no interest in discussing this further. It's upto to FESCo to make a decision.
Rahul
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:57:06AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
On So Juli 1 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
Where does a user not see Fedora when he looks at EPEL? Bugs go to the "Fedora EPEL" Product on Bugzilla, all documentation is found at http://FEDORAproject.org/wiki/EPEL and repoview at http://redhat.download.FEDORAproject.org/pub/epel/5/i386/repoview/ has the title "Fedora EPEL". So are you sure, that a lot of end users are confused by README.Fedora files?
In places where enterprise distributions are used there is typically a lot of end users running preconfigured locked down systems which might also have EPEL repository enabled. They wouldn't be reporting bugs or installing the repository themselves. I can't really be sure about anyone getting confused at all.
The above use case has some flwas. Either the system is locked down in which case the user calls his support to touch anything on the system, or the user is in charge and needs to be aware of the origin and support options of his software.
The case above really cries out for using the proper Fedora association. The only one uncomfortable with this could be an OEM preconfiguring EPEL or other third party software on top of RHEL and supposedly selling this as having the same support options as RHEL packages. And you do want the customer to become aware of this situation.
I have no interest in discussing this further. It's upto to FESCo to make a decision.
On Saturday 30 June 2007 19:04:18 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
"Fedora" is more than a distribution.
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 10:42 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Saturday 30 June 2007 19:04:18 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
"Fedora" is more than a distribution.
Two suggestions:
1. Short required blurb at the top of all README.Fedora such as: "This documentation file is provided by the Fedora Project, from which this package is derived for use by a number of distributions. For more information about this derivation, refer to <LINK>."
2. Making use of the $DISTVAR in Makefile.common:
--- Makefile.common.original 2007-07-01 16:43:18.000000000 -0400 +++ Makefile.common 2007-07-01 16:44:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ DIST = $(word 2, $(BRANCHINFO)) DISTVAR = $(word 3, $(BRANCHINFO)) DISTVAL = $(word 4, $(BRANCHINFO)) -DIST_DEFINES = --define "dist $(DIST)" --define "$(DISTVAR) $(DISTVAL)" +DIST_DEFINES = --define "dist $(DIST)" --define "distvar $(DISTVAR)" --define "$(DISTVAR) $(DISTVAL)"
BUILD_FLAGS ?= $(shell echo $(KOJI_FLAGS))
Then simply use README.%{distvar} in the spec. My personal preference is alternative #1 because like others I see value in spreading the Fedora brand name. If someone's already looking through README files it's hard to make a case that they'll turn up their noses at README.Fedora, simply because of the name, in the absence of any other docs covering their needs.
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 10:42 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Saturday 30 June 2007 19:04:18 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project perspective.
"Fedora" is more than a distribution.
Two suggestions:
- Short required blurb at the top of all README.Fedora such as: "This documentation file is provided by the Fedora Project, from
which this package is derived for use by a number of distributions. For more information about this derivation, refer to <LINK>."
- Making use of the $DISTVAR in Makefile.common:
--- Makefile.common.original 2007-07-01 16:43:18.000000000 -0400 +++ Makefile.common 2007-07-01 16:44:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ DIST = $(word 2, $(BRANCHINFO)) DISTVAR = $(word 3, $(BRANCHINFO)) DISTVAL = $(word 4, $(BRANCHINFO)) -DIST_DEFINES = --define "dist $(DIST)" --define "$(DISTVAR) $(DISTVAL)" +DIST_DEFINES = --define "dist $(DIST)" --define "distvar $(DISTVAR)" --define "$(DISTVAR) $(DISTVAL)"
BUILD_FLAGS ?= $(shell echo $(KOJI_FLAGS))
Then simply use README.%{distvar} in the spec. My personal preference is alternative #1 because like others I see value in spreading the Fedora brand name. If someone's already looking through README files it's hard to make a case that they'll turn up their noses at README.Fedora, simply because of the name, in the absence of any other docs covering their needs.
2) is one solution to "which repository this package came from" type of question, but if/when the package behaves exactly the same whether it's on RHEL (from EPEL) or Fedora, why should the name change? It's not distro-specific but packaging specific information so README.epel vs README.somethingelse is just wrong in that case. README.packaging (not distribution) or similar would be to the point.
1) is a good option, it just means defining the README.something to mean README.<vendor>, not README.<distribution> whereas it currently means vaguely both or either.
- Panu -
Le Lun 2 juillet 2007 11:05, Panu Matilainen a écrit :
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Paul W. Frields wrote:
- Making use of the $DISTVAR in Makefile.common:
- is one solution to "which repository this package came from" type
of question
Could someone explain to me why repotags were not secure enough to answer this question, but dumping a cleartext file in %doc is?
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 2 juillet 2007 11:05, Panu Matilainen a écrit :
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Paul W. Frields wrote:
- Making use of the $DISTVAR in Makefile.common:
- is one solution to "which repository this package came from" type
of question
Could someone explain to me why repotags were not secure enough to answer this question, but dumping a cleartext file in %doc is?
My point was that while 1) would appear to be a reasonable thing to do, it's a solution to wrong problem. Those readme files aren't there to tell the user where the package came from, but to document packaging specific issues such as deviations from upstream behavior, default paths etc.
- Panu -
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 2 juillet 2007 11:05, Panu Matilainen a écrit :
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Paul W. Frields wrote:
- Making use of the $DISTVAR in Makefile.common:
- is one solution to "which repository this package came from" type
of question
Could someone explain to me why repotags were not secure enough to answer this question, but dumping a cleartext file in %doc is?
My point was that while 1) would appear to be a reasonable thing to do, it's a solution to wrong problem. Those readme files aren't there to tell the user where the package came from, but to document packaging specific issues such as deviations from upstream behavior, default paths etc.
Duh, that should be "2) would appear..."
Need more coffee, desperately.
- Panu -
good packaging guideline for Fedora to follow which is to avoid using the "Fedora" name as much as possible in package names and files with exceptions like "Fedora directory server" and recommend using generic names wherever possible.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245649 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245826
I have a couple of review requests which may be affected by the outcome of this discussion. Specifically whether one should append "fedora-" to the names of the *.desktop files or use the "X-Fedora" category in the *.desktop files installed by these packages in /usr/share/applications ?
I have seen: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20061026 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DesktopFiles but not sure what the final decision is. These seem to drafts or "decisions to be taken".
Happy hacking, Debarshi
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 14:21 +0530, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
good packaging guideline for Fedora to follow which is to avoid using the "Fedora" name as much as possible in package names and files with exceptions like "Fedora directory server" and recommend using generic names wherever possible.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245649 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245826
I have a couple of review requests which may be affected by the outcome of this discussion. Specifically whether one should append "fedora-" to the names of the *.desktop files or use the "X-Fedora" category in the *.desktop files installed by these packages in /usr/share/applications ?
The menu files we are shipping make no use of the X-Fedora category (and the X-Red-Hat ones are being phased out too), so adding it will not make any difference.
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 14:21 +0530, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245649 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245826
I have a couple of review requests which may be affected by the outcome of this discussion. Specifically whether one should append "fedora-" to the names of the *.desktop files or use the "X-Fedora" category in the *.desktop files installed by these packages in /usr/share/applications ?
The packaging guidelines seem pretty clear to me. For new packages, if upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as <vendor_id>.
And where in the packaging guidelines does it say that you should be adding the X-Fedora category?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8...
Later, /B
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:09 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 14:21 +0530, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245649 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245826
I have a couple of review requests which may be affected by the outcome of this discussion. Specifically whether one should append "fedora-" to the names of the *.desktop files or use the "X-Fedora" category in the *.desktop files installed by these packages in /usr/share/applications ?
The packaging guidelines seem pretty clear to me. For new packages, if upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as <vendor_id>.
The part that is unclear is that it is not defined anywhere what a vendor prefix is, really. Upstream just happens to ship desktop files that are called gnome-foobar.desktop or kde-powertoy.desktop, and we have to guess that the part up to the first - is the vendor prefix. But what about things like tetex-xdvi.desktop or virt-manager.desktop ?
Once again, desktop files prove to be the worst possible implementation of an application registry...
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:09:45AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:09 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 14:21 +0530, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245649 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245826
I have a couple of review requests which may be affected by the outcome of this discussion. Specifically whether one should append "fedora-" to the names of the *.desktop files or use the "X-Fedora" category in the *.desktop files installed by these packages in /usr/share/applications ?
The packaging guidelines seem pretty clear to me. For new packages, if upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as <vendor_id>.
The part that is unclear is that it is not defined anywhere what a vendor prefix is, really. Upstream just happens to ship desktop files that are called gnome-foobar.desktop or kde-powertoy.desktop, and we have to guess that the part up to the first - is the vendor prefix. But what about things like tetex-xdvi.desktop or virt-manager.desktop ?
Rex made (inho) a good analysis wrt to what the vendor should be and crafted the guideline that is now used. It's quite messy, I agree, but Rex' solution looks fine.
Once again, desktop files prove to be the worst possible implementation of an application registry...
And where in the packaging guidelines does it say that you should be adding the X-Fedora category?
The gnome-password-generator package in FC6 uses it. Since I am taking it off the list of orphan packages, I continued to use it.
Happy hacking, Debarshi
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 08:24:45AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
In this specific instance I believe the guidelines should be mandating README.distribution instead.
I personnally like the idea, but the file name should, in my opinion be more specific such that it is obvious at first sight that it has been added by the package maintainer. And in my opinion README.distribution isn't precise enough. I don't have a precise idea on what it could be in order to be kept short, but something along README.package_specific
-- Pat