On Dec 6, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Tomasz Paweł Gajc wrote: > Everything what has been written here is true. > > I have question who take a lead and prepare change requests for abf and > rpmlint and ofcourse enforce this in near future? >
Before we get too far into "enforcement", I would suggest that you design a process with a mutually agreed "acceptance" rather than a mandatory enforced "rejection" criteria. The difference matters _A LOT_. 73 de Jeff > Wysłano z BlackBerry® w Orange > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Close <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected]: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:28:39 > To: Cooker OpenMandriva<[email protected]> > Reply-To: Cooker OpenMandriva <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OM Cooker] Packaging policies > > On Thursday 05 Dec 2013 10:21:51 Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> >> On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Denis Silakov wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> In Prague, we have discussed with Robert that it would be nice to have >>> packaging policies in OMV wiki. Currently we have this page: >>> https://wiki.openmandriva.org/en/Linux_System_packaging_guidelines >>> but this can be considered as a quick start guide, not the detailed policy. >>> >>> I suggest to import packaging policies from ROSA wiki: >>> http://wiki.rosalab.ru/en/index.php/Category:Packaging_Policies >>> >>> they are based on old MDV documents, but most of them are adopted for >>> modern reality. Some of them can be outdated and should be rechecked, but >>> at least the following ones should be imported: >>> * Libraries policy >>> * Perl policy >>> * Python policy >>> * Ruby policy >>> * Web application policy >>> >>> I wonder what is the best place in OMV wiki for such documents? And does >>> anybody want to perform translation of this policy from ROSA to OMV wiki? >>> >> >> While there is nothing wrong with clear/accurate/maintained packaging >> policies on >> a wiki page, there is a need to also describe the means/procedures by which >> 1) the policy can be modified/amended/clarified >> 2) the policy is detected/enforced > Thank you Jeff, this is an excellent point and we should action it. > This is QA procedure which should be formalised and published. > The same approach should apply to any other standards that are set in that > the procedures etc used should be periodically reviewed and amended where > required and their proper use be audited. I will start work on the > procedural aspect however the audit aspect requires someone with a more > intimate knowledge of rpm and it's use. > > Colin Close > QA Team > >> >> rpmlint is/was a healthy start but looks only at single packages, with a >> rather >> lenient/loose metric. Many policy violations have a much larger distro scope >> that >> cannot be implemented in rpmlint meaningfully. >> >> The current means of detection is left to (mostly) casual inspection, and >> the current means of enforcement (mostly) is left to rather energetic >> negotiations on e-mail lists and (likely, I don't know) irc channels. >> >> hth >> >> 73 de Jeff >> >> >> > > >
