On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:14:04PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 14:56, Neal Gompa
<[1]ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Is it OK for us to link to the packages application in
documentation, or
>> >> should we just link to src.fp.o already (in the NeuroFedora
>> >> documentation[3]) for example?
>> >>
>> >> The one thing that makes us prefer the packages app is that it
has
the
>> >> install command listed there while src.fp.o does not. That makes
the
>> >> packages app somewhat more appropriate for end-users than
>> >> src.fp.o---src.fp.o has links to all the other build pipelines
>> >
>> >
>> > That's sounds like something that could be easily solved. For
example having a simple README.md for each package with a Description,
How to install and How to report Bugs.
>> >
>>
>> It is strategically infeasible to use the README.md file in this way
>> for src.fp.o. If we want data showing up there, we need to adjust
>> src.fp.o itself to show that data.
>
>
> I lack the knowledge here, why would that be strategically infeasible
? due to the volume of packages ?
>
It's not just the volume of packages, but also because the README.md
file is editable by committers. It can even be deleted by them. You
can't guarantee anything about the file.
As far as I understand it the current info we display in the description
and summary come from the spec file which happened to be maintained by the
packagers :-). I would trust the packagers to add the file for their
packages if they don't want it, fine but their packages would be less
user friendly.
The summary and description are actually pulled via ajax from mdapi using the
template override mechanism built in pagure.
I'd actually rely on this more than I would rely on a README.md, a single place
that would affect all dist-git repo in Fedora (RPMs and others) w/o having to
push commits to 20k+ git repos :)
Basically, it means modifying this template:
https://pagure.io/pagure/blob/master/f/pagure/themes/srcfpo/templates/rep...
Pierre