#478 Proposal: Package Guidelines: DevAssistant Assistant packages (DAP)
Closed: Fixed None Opened 7 years ago by tradej.


I would like to ask you to kindly review the proposal for packaging Assistant packages (DAPs) for DevAssistant. It is located at: [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tradej/Draft:Packaging:DAP]. I am an upstream developer and Fedora co-maintainer of DevAssistant as well. The guidelines are aimed at current Rawhide and newer versions of Fedora only.

Thank you, Tomas Radej

Just a comment on macro implementation -- if DAP installation can be mostly be automated like this, it would be good if the %install_assistant macro could produce a file list, so that the %files section can be simplified to:

%files -f dap-files

We discussed this at today's meeting (​​​​http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-12-18/fpc.2014-12-18-17.01.txt):

  • 478 Proposal: Package Guidelines: DevAssistant Assistant packages

    (DAP) (geppetto, 17:27:41)
  • LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/478 (geppetto, 17:27:45)
  • Policy is awesome for a first draft, well done! (geppetto,
  • ACTION: Tradej Maybe create a filelist in %install_assistant and use
    %files -f? (geppetto, 17:45:12)
  • ACTION: Tradej Need the version requirement on devassistant 0.10 to
    be in the specfiles. (geppetto, 17:45:34)
  • ACTION: Tradej No LICENSE files in the specfiles. (geppetto,
  • ACTION: Tradej Speak with orionp about the dap-* package name
    prefix. (geppetto, 17:46:15)
  • ACTION: Tradej Create an example package for Fedora (geppetto,

Just a friendly ping that we looked at this in today's meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-01-08/fpc.2015-01-08-17.01.txt) but still need the info.

Hi, thanks.

  • ad %files -f: Implemented.
  • ad version requirement: IMHO not necessary. DevAssistant < 0.10 does not provide devassistant-ui, which is required by Assistant RPMs. Direct dependency on devassistant is forbidden. [1]
  • ad LICENSE files: Licensing files are stored in %{assistant_path}/doc/%{shortname}/, and are properly marked as %doc, so IMHO this is in accordance with the Guidelines.
  • ad dap- prefix: Solved by renaming packages to devassistant-dap-%{shortname}.
  • ad example package: SRPM: [2], binary RPM: [3]. This package was built in COPR https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/tradej/DevAssistant/.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tradej/Draft:Packaging:DAP#Dependencies

[2] https://tradej.fedorapeople.org/fpc/devassistant-dap-revealjs-0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm

[3] https://tradej.fedorapeople.org/fpc/devassistant-dap-revealjs-0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm

We discussed this at today's meeting (​http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-01-22/fpc.2015-01-22-17.01.txt), and it passed:

  • 478 Proposal: Package Guidelines: DevAssistant Assistant packages

    (DAP) (geppetto, 17:39:00)
  • LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/478 (geppetto, 17:39:01)
  • ACTION: Package Guidelines: DevAssistant Assistant packages (DAP)
    (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:58:03)

Thank you for approving the guidelines. Is there something I should/can do now?

Nope. I'll do the writeup, make the accouncement and close the ticket.

Announcement text:

Guidelines for DevAssistant packages (DAP) were added: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DevAssistant

Metadata Update from @james:
- Issue assigned to tibbs

5 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.