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

[SPAM] Re: Deep Freeze coming for Fedora 7 (and cvs branching coming too)

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 07:58:55PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > guideline and it was implicitly ok to avoid some changelog entries as
> > the reverse seems so unnatural and bureaucratic to me. Moreover I have
> > seen a lot of other packagers doing that while reading the commit
> > messages without anybody complaining, so I thought it was ok, I stand
> > corrected.
> > 
> We could be talking about different things... it's hard to tell from
> looking at your changelog :-)
> Every build must have a new changelog entry.  Every commit does not.  So
> when I see this changelog:

Ok, I agree if you mean every succesfull build. 

> * Mon May 14 2007 Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> 2006-10.1
> - packlib/{ffread,hbook} test segfaults on ppc64
> * Sun May 13 2007 Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> 2006-9
> - add a compat prefix when built with g77
> - new debian patcheset
> It's fine if 2006-10 was never built.  You should have had another entry
> if 2006-10 was committed but not built.

Didn't you said the reverse above?

> Not quite.  If you have a package which provides libraries and utilities
> it can very easily be linking against static versions of the library
> instead of the dynamic versions without pulling in a -static subpackage.

Ok, but hopefully the maintainers knowwhat they are doing. And that case 
isn't that bad since the libraries and the utilities should be released

> But you have failed to even do that.  Phrase your letter as data if you

Not failed, but it seemed to be pointless until approval was also needed. 
I'l try to do a proposal regarding packaging numerical static libs and 
submit examples by that week-end.

> I'm not going to ask to change the guidelines WRT linking to static
> libraries.  (You'll still have to ask FESCo if you want to link to a
> static libary).

I agree with that. 

> I'm not going to ask for a special case exception for numerical
> libraries.

I'll try to come with something this week-end.
> These are significant changes from the current guidelines and they might
> not be approved by the Packaging Committee in which case your packaging
> will still be out of compliance and someone could open bugs against your
> packages.

That's fine with me since I think that no one will complain.


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