Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455187 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-25 16:06:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > > * Using only checkout date in versionin is insufficient at all. You should > > use > > svn revision (and date, if you wish) instead. > > Sorry, but the MUST is the other way round DATEsvn is a must, while your > DATEsvnREVISION suggestion is optional. So I will stay with the current one. > Keep in mind, that the upstream development is more than slow, I can cound > the commits over the last year on one hand or so; see also: Ok. > > * Main package should contain doc/short-desc as well. > > The content of doc/short-desc seems useless to me. As far as I read, HOWTO > file > contains this content as well, so I didn't add the file and will keep this. Likewise. > > * I'm in doubts of naming scheme for devel-subpackage. Actually we can use > > erlang modules in development w/o sources :). Maybe it would be better to > > name > > it src instead of devel? Just my thoughts, anyway... > > I'm currently only using what the current packages are doing. AFAIK there is > no scheme for erlang until now. If I'm switching, the other packages also have > to do so before. I think we should, probably, discuss it via fedora-devel maillist. There are more libraries for interpreted languages coming, there similar issues would arise. > > * You should use -p switch for "install" command, in order to preserve > > timestamps. Frankly speaking in this case (checkout from VCS) there is not > > so > > much sense, but lately, when official tarball may be introduced, it would > > have > > more meaning. > > I won't use -p once we've something official, currently seems useless to me. Ok. > As you maybe understand, I'm not happy with flipping some bits or > lines all the time during a review while it is still discussed or similar. Of > course this only referes to the current points. Erlang packaging guidelines are still missing. Are you interested in creating ones? There is a dedicated SIG for erlang: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Erlang but still no guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
