Packaging talk:Guidelines

From FedoraProject

Revision as of 09:35, 9 March 2012 by Davidcl (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Idea.png
Here is the procedure for proposing changes to the guidelines. Simply commenting here may not do any good.

Contents

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".

libs subpackages

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 --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.