| |
@@ -3,41 +3,29 @@
|
| |
= Package Review Process
|
| |
:toc:
|
| |
|
| |
- [#review_purpose]
|
| |
- == Review Purpose
|
| |
-
|
| |
In order for a new package to be added to Fedora,
|
| |
the package must first undertake a formal review.
|
| |
- The purpose of this formal review is to try to ensure
|
| |
- that the package meets the quality control requirements for Fedora.
|
| |
- This does not mean that the package
|
| |
- (or the software being packaged)
|
| |
- is perfect,
|
| |
- but it should meet baseline minimum requirements for quality.
|
| |
-
|
| |
- Reviews are currently done for
|
| |
- totally new packages,
|
| |
- xref:Package_Renaming_Process.adoc#re_review_required[package renames],
|
| |
- old packages that were once retired returning to the collection,
|
| |
- and packages merged from the old Fedora Core repository.
|
| |
-
|
| |
- Note that some new packages may be exempt from the review process.
|
| |
- Please see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process[the list of criteria].
|
| |
- If an exemption is warranted,
|
| |
- the contributor can skip directly to
|
| |
- requesting a repository for it.
|
| |
- The request to create a repo should include the `--exception` flag
|
| |
- instead of a bug number:
|
| |
- ....
|
| |
- fedpkg request-repo --exception <package-name>
|
| |
- ....
|
| |
+ The process is governed by the FESCo approved https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/[Package Review Policy].
|
| |
|
| |
[#review_process]
|
| |
== Review Process
|
| |
|
| |
There are two roles in the review process,
|
| |
that of the contributor and that of the reviewer.
|
| |
- In this document, we'll present both perspectives.
|
| |
+ This document presents both perspectives.
|
| |
+
|
| |
+ [#exemptions]
|
| |
+ === Exemptions
|
| |
+
|
| |
+ Certain packages are exempted from the review process
|
| |
+ as described in the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#what[Applicability section of Package Review Policy].
|
| |
+ If an exemption is warranted,
|
| |
+ the contributor can directly request a repository for the package.
|
| |
+ The request to create a repo should include the `--exception` flag
|
| |
+ instead of a bug number:
|
| |
+ ....
|
| |
+ fedpkg request-repo --exception <package-name>
|
| |
+ ....
|
| |
|
| |
=== Contributor
|
| |
|
| |
@@ -48,11 +36,8 @@
|
| |
you must follow the detailed instructions to xref:Joining_the_Package_Maintainers.adoc[Joining the Package Maintainers].
|
| |
|
| |
As a Contributor, you should have already made a package
|
| |
- which adheres to the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/[Package Naming Guidelines]
|
| |
- and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/[Packaging Guidelines].
|
| |
- There are also some packages that cannot be included in Fedora,
|
| |
- to check if your package applies,
|
| |
- check if it contains any https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items[Forbidden Items].
|
| |
+ which adheres to the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/[Packaging Guidelines]
|
| |
+ and does not contain any https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items[Forbidden Items].
|
| |
|
| |
When you're happy with your spec file,
|
| |
you should then submit that SRPM to a package review.
|
| |
@@ -78,7 +63,7 @@
|
| |
or can be some other private arrangement
|
| |
depending on the difficulty of the respective packages.
|
| |
|
| |
- * If you do not have any package already in Fedora, you need a sponsor.
|
| |
+ * If you are not member of the https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/[packager] group, you need a sponsor.
|
| |
Add https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-NEEDSPONSOR[FE-NEEDSPONSOR] to the bugs being blocked by your review request.
|
| |
For more information read xref:How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group.adoc[How to Get Sponsored into the Packager Group].
|
| |
|
| |
@@ -107,22 +92,29 @@
|
| |
indicating that the package has passed review.
|
| |
|
| |
* If you have not yet been sponsored,
|
| |
- request sponsorship by https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/new_issue[raising an issue at package sponsors].
|
| |
+ request sponsorship by https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issues[raising an issue at packager-sponsors].
|
| |
|
| |
* When your package passes the review
|
| |
- you should use `fedpkg` to request a Git repository for it.
|
| |
- Before you can request a Git repository for the package,
|
| |
- you will need a https://pagure.io/settings/token/new[pagure api token]
|
| |
- with _Create a new ticket_ ACL
|
| |
- added into `~/.config/rpkg/fedpkg.conf`:
|
| |
+ you should use `fedpkg` to request a Git repository for it.
|
| |
+ Before you can request a Git repository for the package,
|
| |
+ you will need a https://pagure.io/settings/token/new[pagure.io api token]
|
| |
+ with _Create a new ticket_ ACL
|
| |
+ added into `~/.config/rpkg/fedpkg.conf`:
|
| |
+ +
|
| |
....
|
| |
[fedpkg.pagure]
|
| |
token = <generated-code>
|
| |
....
|
| |
|
| |
* Request a Git repository for the package.
|
| |
- For example, if your bugzilla review ticket is 12345,
|
| |
- use: `fedpkg request-repo 12345`.
|
| |
+ For example, if the package name is `my-package`
|
| |
+ and the bugzilla review ticket is 12345,
|
| |
+ :
|
| |
+ +
|
| |
+ ....
|
| |
+ fedpkg request-repo my-package 12345
|
| |
+ ....
|
| |
+ +
|
| |
Check that your review bug is valid.
|
| |
It must have the `fedora-review` set to `+`,
|
| |
and it must be assigned to your reviewer.
|
| |
@@ -132,14 +124,19 @@
|
| |
and not just Rawhide,
|
| |
let's say to Fedora {MAJOROSVER},
|
| |
you can use the following command to request additional branches:
|
| |
- `fedpkg request-branch --repo f{MAJOROSVER}`.
|
| |
+ +
|
| |
+ ....
|
| |
+ fedpkg request-branch --repo f{MAJOROSVER}`
|
| |
+ ....
|
| |
+ +
|
| |
You must wait for your repository to be created
|
| |
before filing your branch request,
|
| |
otherwise your branch request will be closed as invalid.
|
| |
|
| |
- * When this is complete
|
| |
- (https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issues[tickets in Pagure] for requests above are closed as processed),
|
| |
+ * When https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issues[fedora-scm-requests tickets]
|
| |
+ for the requested repository and branches are closed,
|
| |
checkout the package:
|
| |
+ +
|
| |
....
|
| |
fedpkg clone
|
| |
....
|
| |
oturpe
commented 2 years ago
Recently, the Package Review Policy was added to FESCo docs,
mostly based on review pages of this repo.
Add reference to the FESCo policy
so that it is clear where need to do reviews comes from.
Also remove some content that does not have to be duplicated here
since it is already available at the FESCo policy.
Also some minor fixes to Packege Review Policy
in a separate commit.
Relates to #21