#900 Proposed Packaging Guidelines
Opened 3 years ago by bex. Modified 3 years ago

I've recently been working on packaging golang. The current packaging guidelines appear to be approved in this ticket, https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/382 , but not yet in the packaging guide at docs.fedoraproject.org.

Additionally this appears to be winding its way toward FPC consideration: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging

I wonder if we should have a proposed guidelines list linked from the packaging guide. This list could be gated on some form of initial FPC consideration or other acid-test. This way these guidelines get surfaced for more use (and hopefully debugging).

It should be fixed now, the Guidelines has been published.

I am super glad these got merged.

I'd like to see this ticket still considered by FESCo regarding publishign proposed specs somewhere more findable.

Metadata Update from @james:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

3 years ago

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging is kept for historical reasons to serve as a packaging guide before FC31. It's the ancestor of the nice guidelines @eclipseo finally got approved and published.

I added a warning to the wiki.

@bex is there anything FPC can do here?

Metadata Update from @ignatenkobrain:
- Issue untagged with: meeting

3 years ago

@ignatenkobrain I think FPC should ideally act to do several things:

  1. Figure out how to deprecate old wiki pages that are out of date so we don't have confusoin
  2. Provide links to draft guidelines somewhere more visible, such as in the packaging guide so that it is clear what is being considered and how to find it.
  3. Consider blocking on new packaging guidelines going into effect before they are published on docs.fp.o.

My personal opinions:

  1. We should certainly continue on our existing plan to replace the current guidelines pages with redirects. We can't know about all wiki pages or random web pages where someone may have drafted something. We can delete or add warnings to pages as we are informed of them, though. I have elevated wiki privileges if this needs to be done. If someone finds confusing pages in the wiki which look like the contradict guidelines, they are welcome to file tickets.

  2. Maybe on a case by case basis; if there is some major subsystem for which guidelines are being drafted, we could certainly include a stub page with a disclaimer and a link. But for most things I think the list of tickets and PRs is sufficient. So for example, perhaps for the upcoming R guideline overhaul, we could link to the draft to avoid confusion.

  3. This is impossible in general. In the specific case of Go, I tried originally to get this to happen by blocking package reviews until even draft guidelines could be drawn up and was overridden by the project leadership (because of how critical docker was deemed to be).

Really, though, I don't think there's much we can really do here to address your concerns that we aren't already doing.

We talked about this issue this week:


  • #900 Proposed Packaging Guidelines (geppetto, 16:17:39)
  • All the official policies should be somewhat obvious due to their
    category, we'll continue to do what we can to make it obvious what
    packages should do. (geppetto, 16:33:44)

Login to comment on this ticket.