Packaging talk:Guidelines

From FedoraProject

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(New section: libs subpackages)
(request for a change (typo fix))
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{lang|en|es|page=Packaging_talk:Guidelines}}
 +
{{admon/tip|Here is [[Packaging:Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedure|the procedure for proposing changes to the guidelines]].  Simply commenting here may not do any good.}}
 +
 +
== Broken internal links ==
 +
 +
Exceptions is used as an id to an <a> tag twice, and as a result, the two different links to #Exceptions (which should be different) do not work properly.
 +
 +
Typo fix: [[Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning]] should be used instead of [[Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Version]]
 +
 +
 
Look for string ",so" and change it to ".so".
 
Look for string ",so" and change it to ".so".
  
Line 4: Line 14:
  
 
Should there be some info on naming / reasons for having -libs subpackages in here somewhere?
 
Should there be some info on naming / reasons for having -libs subpackages in here somewhere?
 +
 +
== Layout update. ==
 +
 +
In "Packaging Static Libraries"
 +
Could we get a layout update so that the points 1 and 2 both start on new lines.
 +
 +
== Patch Upstream Status ==
 +
Is this a Guideline? I guess so, because it is in the Packaging Namespace, but it is only linked from [[PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo]]
 +
 +
[[Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus]]
 +
--[[User:Till|Till]] 10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
Noticed [[Packaging/Guidelines#tags]] has 2 broken links to www.rpm.org
 +
 +
== Versioned Requires ==
 +
 +
Guideline states
 +
Second, the Epoch must be listed when adding a versioned dependency to achieve robust epoch-version-release comparison. A quick way to check the Epoch of package foo is to run:
 +
rpm --query --qf "%{EPOCH}\n" packagename
 +
 +
However, if this returns (null), the package has no epoch.  Therefore Requires: cannot include an epoch.

Latest revision as of 09:35, 9 March 2012

Idea.png
Here is the procedure for proposing changes to the guidelines. Simply commenting here may not do any good.

Contents

[edit] Broken internal links

Exceptions is used as an id to an <a> tag twice, and as a result, the two different links to #Exceptions (which should be different) do not work properly.

Typo fix: Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning should be used instead of Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Version


Look for string ",so" and change it to ".so".

[edit] libs subpackages

Should there be some info on naming / reasons for having -libs subpackages in here somewhere?

[edit] Layout update.

In "Packaging Static Libraries" Could we get a layout update so that the points 1 and 2 both start on new lines.

[edit] Patch Upstream Status

Is this a Guideline? I guess so, because it is in the Packaging Namespace, but it is only linked from PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo

Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus --Till 10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticed Packaging/Guidelines#tags has 2 broken links to www.rpm.org

[edit] Versioned Requires

Guideline states Second, the Epoch must be listed when adding a versioned dependency to achieve robust epoch-version-release comparison. A quick way to check the Epoch of package foo is to run:

rpm --query --qf "%{EPOCH}\n" packagename 

However, if this returns (null), the package has no epoch. Therefore Requires: cannot include an epoch.