Packaging:Minutes20061031

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting of {2006-10-31}

Present

  • JasonTibbitts (tibbs)
  • RalfCorsepius (racor)
  • RexDieter (rdieter)
  • TomCallaway (spot)
  • ToshioKuratomi (abadger1999)
  • VilleSkyttä (scop)

Notes

  • Six members in attendance (out of nine). Passage requires five votes.
  • abadger1999, rdieter, and tibbs have guidelines to write up.
  • Existing issues from Packaging/GuidelinesTodo were considered:
  • The static linkage draft at PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage was discussed. One sentence was added to indicate that rationales for -static subpackages must be provided and the appropriate committee would be consulted before allowing the package. The proposal, plus extension #1 (requiring static libs to be in separate -static subpackages) passed with all members in attendance voting yes. To be written up by racor.
  • The item regarding Translations was discussed. The committee voted to add text to the guidelines indicating that BuildRequires: gettext must be added to packages including translations in order to prevent build failures or silent breakage. There was some discussion that this is not strictly a packaging requirement and that the guidelines should be kept clean, but the problem is not uncommonly encountered, the text is simple and fits well in an existing section. Upon discussion it was decided that issue can be revisited and such information split out of the guidelines in the future if the guidelines become unwieldy. To be written up by rdieter.
  • The floor was opened to additional discussion:
  • tibbs requested preliminary discussion on the License Tags issue. The general concensus was that license tags should be standardized by the committee, they should be reasonably specific to the point of indicating license version where it is important (as in GPL versus GPLv3). Tags such as "BSD (with additional clauses, see LICENSE.txt)" should be permitted. tibbs indicated that he would work up a draft.
  • The committee took up the issue of requiring that Requires: (or whatever fine-grained Requires(*): dependencies are required) always be used in preference to PreReq:. After some discussion about how PreReq: differes from Requires:, the item was approved. To be written up by spot.