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

Re: Review request...

Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet  wrote:
> On 11/18/2009 06:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> Many packagers don't know that maintaining a proper spec %changelog for
>>> relevant spec file changes and %release bumps are considered important
>>> during review already. Others add meaningless/dummy %changelog entries
>>> even in Fedora cvs.
>> But that's a people issue that needs to be solved, not papered over in the
>> name of "being nice".
>> Sadly, "incompetence" as in unfamiliarity with guidelines which are
>> assumed
>> to be prerequisites for proper packaging is growing in our ranks (both
>> from
>> new packagers and from people who ought to know better), something needs
>> to
>> be done about it.
> For sure. Personally I've been using Redhat/Fedora for years now, but this
> is my first package submission to fedora. I've wanted to get involved for
> awhile now. I had read the guidelines, and honestly want to provide a
> properly configured package. I think (and this very well could have been a
> language issue) that knowing what the issue I'm missing in my current spec
> would help immensely. I mean I know there are packaging guidelines, and
> there is a lot of information there, so it is plausible for someone new not
> to see sub documentation or notice that their spec isn't in compliance.
> Having the exact issue pointed out helps with the learning. Is there a
> 'ReviewingReviews' guideline? Would that even help?
> Anyway, I hope to get some feedback on the actual review too, but I mainly
> started this thread because I wasn't sure what I wasn't doing. I was asked
> for a scratch build which I *thought* I had provided a link to. I provided
> links to spec files and srpms. However was continually being asked for that
> same thing, and the requests and my responses were obviously not being
> understood by either party. I posted to make sure I wasn't missing something
> obvious, some guideline of 'Here's how to post your spec file, srpm and
> scratch build', if I wasn't doing it correctly.
> Sincerely trying to provide the best package I can,
> Nathanael

There is a Review Guidelines page that is supposed to be the basis for
package reviews:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines but they
honestly only scratch the bare minimum of the full set of Packaging

My take, as a comparatively inexperienced packager, is that packaging
is such a wide ranging subject that it's not something that you can
gain proficiency at without gaining the experience of doing it a lot,
and in the process failing a lot and learning from the failure.

6 months from now, you'll likely look back on your first few packages,
as I did, and wonder 'how did that ever pass the review process?', or
'what was my sponsor thinking when he approved of me?'.

The packaging guidelines, are honestly sooo voluminous, and also so
scattered, that it's an interesting problem for new packagers, and the
getting started as a packager documentation is the same way. Much of
that could be improved (and at one time there was an effort going on
towards that end.) but it will never become 'easy'. In the end, don't
hesitate to ask for help or say you don't know. Part of the process is
learning how to become effectively lost. Failure, within Fedora is OK,
and even encouraged, provided you correct it and learn from it.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.10)


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