On the opensuse-packaging mailing list, we've recently formed a team
that will take care of the packaging guidelines and introduced a
small process to change them:
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process
As part of that process, we're announcing regularly the changes to the
packaging guidelines. Since this is a first such announcement, it
is not a complete change but just points out a few things from the
past few months. In the future, we will send out this email once a
month.
The Packaging guidelines can be found at
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines .
List of changes
===============
1) New Lua Guidelines
2) Reworked font guidelines
3) Documenting changes in packages
4) Teams involved, contact
Details
=======
1) New Lua Guidelines
We now have guidelines for lua:
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Lua.
2) Reworked font guidelines
The packaging of fonts has been completely changed, and is documented
at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Fonts
3) Documenting changes in packages
The openSUSE review team is now also enforcing proper documenting
changes in packages:
First, the .changes entry (rpm changelog) surves two purposes:
- News for the user
- History tracking of packaging changes (often referenced in bugs to
verify if a user has the latest packaging bugfixes).
3.1) Information about updates
A simple "Update to version x.y.z" is, as before, not
accepted. There should be some buzz around the update for the user;
some major reasons to the upgrade should be listed.
Changes on the package itself should be mentioned in a way that any
other contributor to the same package can follow traces of why
something is the way it is. Commonly, Added (build)dependencies are
interesting to be seen, special hacks to make something work in a
particular way [..]: Always consider that package maintenance is a
distributed task and various contributors need to be able to step up
at will.
3.2) Documenting patch life cycle
The rules about patches are listed at
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Patches_guidelines .
Most prominent is likely the mentioning of the patches life cycle,
which forces you to mention additions and removals of patches in the
changelog. As history shows, this can be helpful if a patch got
removed, and later a regression is reported; finding out when a
patch was removed can be crucial in reconstructing feature sets
(including contacting the contributor that dropped it.. which is
easily extracted from the .changes if listed)
The main appeal is to the devel project maintainers / reviewers, to
keep out for those rules, to live according to them, as it is
frustrating for everybody if a package needs to be declined by the
openSUSE Factory Review team:
- The dev prj maintainer is the one getting the 'decline' (as it was
usually a forwarded request), which often leaves the 'fixing' to
the devel project maintainers, where the 'originator' of the fix
would have been willing to actually do that...
Note: The review team is not enforcing the usage of patch markup
unless the package already follows this convention.
4) Teams involved, contact
I mentioned two teams previously, these are the openSUSE review team
(details at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:OpenSUSE_review_team) and
the team taking care of the guidelines (details at
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process#Team_members).
You
can reach both via the openSUSE-packaging mailing list.
On behalf of the teams,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-announce+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-announce+help@opensuse.org
No comments:
Post a Comment