you are so right Stephan
- these are not offical files, but they look like
- they are not used by mainteners (they do their job in their distro repo)
they should go
maybe we could replace them with a list of urls like
https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/enlightenment17
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/X11:/Enlightenment:/Factory/
On Thursday 05 December 2013 08:36, Stefan Schmidt wrote :
> Hello.
>
> On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 11:30, Simon wrote:
> > On 12/05/2013 10:22 AM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:43:31 -0500 Michael Blumenkrantz
> > > <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> said:
> > >
> > >> this seems to have snuck in to all the repos while I was away, and I
> > >> strongly
> > >> disagree with the premise based on previous decisions.
> > >>
> > >> if people remember, we previously removed debian/ directories from our
> > >> distribution directories for being too distro-specific. isn't adding the
> > >> arch-only pkgbuild stuff the exact same thing?
> > >>
> > >> I think if we're going to keep these, then it makes sense to allow ALL
> > >> packaging-related files, and not just cater to whatever distro is hot at
> > >> the
> > >> time.
> > > there's a big difference. debian has a POLICY of "you are not allowed to
> > > have
> > > debian build stuff in a source tree". they continually complain that we
> > > had
> > > such stuff.
> > >
> > > we have had .spec files for much longer than even debian build stuff.
> > > there's
> > > enlightenment.spec right there. you've never complained.
> > >
> > > so leave it there. the removal of debian stuff is due to debian policies.
> > >
> > The .spec files should probably be removed based off the fact as far as
> > i know no one has been maintaining them, i don't think any of the major
> > rpm based distro's are using them, we also all use them sightly
> > differently. If someone is going to use them and keep them updated then
> > keep them otherwise they should probably go.
>
> I think this is the key point everybody looks away from. Non of the
> package maintainers use these things its only some dev that at some
> point thought it would be cool to have package for his current distro.
>
> As Simon just pointed he is not using the spec files for openSuSe. I
> bet Fedora is not using them either. The same would go for raster arch
> files.
>
> The key is distros are not using them only some devs here are. Its
> easy to see why they are not doing it, too. Packagers have access to
> distro infrastructure and not to the upstream project. They might be
> able to get commit access but not all projects are as easy with it
> as we are. You have a distro specific addition to an upstream package
> thus you are doing the work in the distro. Totally makes sense to me.
>
> My personal problem with packaging files in our repos are twofold a)
> it gives the impression they are the official files from the distro
> which they are not and b) they bitrot easily because only very few
> people use them.
>
> regards
> Stefan Schmidt
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
> Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
> Download it for free now!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> enlightenment-devel mailing list
> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
--- Hell'O from Yverdoom
Jérémy (jeyzu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
Download it for free now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
