#1105 Update Package Maintainer Docs links
Merged 2 years ago by tibbs. Opened 2 years ago by oturpe.
oturpe/packaging-committee update-packager-docs-links  into  master

Update Package Maintainer Docs links
Otto Urpelainen • 2 years ago  
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ 

  Patch0: gnome-panel-fix-frobnicator.patch

  ....

  

- Sending patches upstream and adding this comment will help ensure that Fedora is acting as a good FLOSS citizen (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects[Staying close to upstream projects]). It will help others (and even you) down the line in package maintenance by knowing what patches are likely to appear in a new upstream release.

+ Sending patches upstream and adding this comment will help ensure that Fedora is acting as a good FLOSS citizen (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/[Staying Close to Upstream Projects]). It will help others (and even you) down the line in package maintenance by knowing what patches are likely to appear in a new upstream release.

  

  === If upstream doesn't have a bug tracker

  
@@ -44,4 +44,4 @@ 

  

  == Why upstream?

  

- Refer https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects[Staying close to upstream projects]

+ Refer https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/[Staying Close to Upstream Projects]

@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ 

  Some things to watch out for:

  

  * Make sure that you are copying the correct code. The example is copying the code from within the top directory of the untarred source. If the `+%prep+` has changed directory you will need to change back to the tarball location.

- * Patching the source code is done before copying to `+python3+`. Since you have both a python2 and a python3 directory you might be tempted to patch each one separately. *Resist!* Upstream for your package has chosen to distribute a single source tree that builds for both python2 and python3. For your patches to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects[get into upstream], you need to write patches that work with both as well.

+ * Patching the source code is done before copying to `+python3+`. Since you have both a python2 and a python3 directory you might be tempted to patch each one separately. *Resist!* Upstream for your package has chosen to distribute a single source tree that builds for both python2 and python3. For your patches to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/[get into upstream], you need to write patches that work with both as well.

  

  `+rpmbuild+` resets the directory at the end of each phase, so you don't need to restore the directory at the end of `+%prep+`.

  

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ 

  = Deprecating Packages

  :toc:

  

- Sometimes a package is intended to be https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life[removed from Fedora], but it is kept in Fedora for some additional (often indeterminate) time for various reasons including maintaining backwards compatibility. In order to prevent new packages from depending on such a package, it can be marked as *deprecated*.

+ Sometimes a package is intended to be https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/[removed from Fedora], but it is kept in Fedora for some additional (often indeterminate) time for various reasons including maintaining backwards compatibility. In order to prevent new packages from depending on such a package, it can be marked as *deprecated*.

  

  == Prerequisites for deprecation

  

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ 

  :abi-comparison-tool: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_check_for_ABI_changes_in_a_package[ABI comparison tool]

  :packaging-committee: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee[Fedora Packaging Committee]

  :scl-guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Guidelines_(draft)[Software Collections]

- :updates-policy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy[Updates Policy]

+ :updates-policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/[Updates Policy]

  :toc: macro

  

  The Packaging Guidelines are a collection of common issues
@@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ 

  For documents which cover those issues,

  please see the following:

  

- * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join[Joining the package collection maintainers]

- * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors[New package process for existing contributors]

+ * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/[Join the Package Maintainers]

+ * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_Existing_Contributors/[New Package Process for Existing Contributors]

  * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-rpm-packages/index.html[Creating RPM packages]

  

  It is the package reviewer's responsibility to point out specific problems with a package
@@ -1921,7 +1921,7 @@ 

  Patch0: gnome-panel-fix-frobnicator.patch

  ....

  

- Sending patches upstream and adding this comment will help ensure that Fedora is acting as a good FLOSS citizen (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream[Why Upstream?]). It will help others (and even you) down the line in package maintenance by knowing what patches are likely to appear in a new upstream release.

+ Sending patches upstream and adding this comment will help ensure that Fedora is acting as a good FLOSS citizen (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/[Staying Close to Upstream Projects]). It will help others (and even you) down the line in package maintenance by knowing what patches are likely to appear in a new upstream release.

  

  ==== If upstream doesn't have a bug tracker

  
@@ -2050,7 +2050,7 @@ 

  [#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages]

  == Renaming/Replacing Existing Packages

  

- NOTE: FESCo has a https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required[package renaming policy] that should be followed when renaming an existing package.

+ NOTE: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/[Package Renaming Process] should be followed when renaming an existing package.

  

  In the event that it becomes necessary to rename or replace an existing package, the new package should make the change transparent to end users to the extent applicable.

  

Package Maintainer Docs have moved
from wiki to docs.fedoraproject.org.
Update links to point to the new location.

Pull-Request has been merged by tibbs

2 years ago