On Friday 06 Dec 2013 11:28:20 Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > 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 Some of them can be outdated and should be rechecked, but 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Jeff, seems like you and I are singing from the same hymn sheet so to speak!
Colin Close QA Team
