On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 14:58 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
# for /usr/share/gnome/autostart
Requires: gnome-session
Great! This adds
gnome-session: 1.8 MB
control-center: 7.1 MB
GConf2: 5,5 MB
gnome-keyring: 2,3 MB
gnome-vfs2: 3.1 MB
You added
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 12:25 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
c) Have rpm silently add ownership of unowned directories to the package
that creates them. This could cause weird directory conflicts when some
other package actually owns the directory / becomes the owner, and just
feels wrong
Le Mer 10 juin 2009 15:28, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
I think we want something slighly less than this; rpm should track the
fact that a directory was created just because some files needed to be
put there, and it should be able to clean up if the last such file is
removed. But I should not
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mer 10 juin 2009 15:28, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
I think we want something slighly less than this; rpm should track the
fact that a directory was created just because some files needed to be
put there, and it should be able to clean up if the
Am Montag, den 08.06.2009, 20:47 + schrieb David Zeuthen:
Author: davidz
[snipped]
--- NEW FILE polkit-gnome.spec ---
Summary: PolicyKit integration for the GNOME desktop
Name: polkit-gnome
Version: 0.92
Release: 1%{?dist}
License: LGPLv2
URL:
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 14:58 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
# for /usr/share/gnome/autostart
Requires: gnome-session
Great! This adds
gnome-session: 1.8 MB
control-center: 7.1 MB
GConf2: 5,5 MB
gnome-keyring: 2,3 MB
gnome-vfs2: 3.1 MB
You added at least ~ 22,8 MB overhead just
Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2009, 09:28 -0400 schrieb Matthias Clasen:
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 14:58 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
# for /usr/share/gnome/autostart
Requires: gnome-session
Great! This adds
gnome-session: 1.8 MB
control-center: 7.1 MB
GConf2: 5,5 MB
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 16:06 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
My anger is because people don't honor our packaging guidelines not even
if they are asked to do so. The guidelines are very clear in this case:
Multiple packages have files in a common directory but none of them
requires others.
Matthias Clasen wrote:
...
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory.
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of
On 06/09/2009 07:20 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 16:06 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
My anger is because people don't honor our packaging guidelines not even
if they are asked to do so. The guidelines are very clear in this case:
Multiple packages have files in a common
How could we document that when in doubt, clicking through to the full
review guidelines should be done?
After each item in the review guidelines, add a [more] link that
points to the relevant section in the packaging guidelines ?
--
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
--
fedora-devel-list
MB == Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) boche...@fedoraproject.org writes:
MB After each item in the review guidelines, add a [more] link that
MB points to the relevant section in the packaging guidelines ?
Do you realize that the document already has footnotes doing exactly
that?
- J
--
MB After each item in the review guidelines, add a [more] link that
MB points to the relevant section in the packaging guidelines ?
Do you realize that the document already has footnotes doing exactly
that?
Wow !
Looks like I was not entirely awake when I looked at them, I missed
the
Le mardi 09 juin 2009 à 10:20 -0400, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 16:06 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
My anger is because people don't honor our packaging guidelines not even
if they are asked to do so. The guidelines are very clear in this case:
Multiple packages
14 matches
Mail list logo
