[csw-maintainers] [policy] Re: feature patching, and naming

[Peter FELECAN]

Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Am 08.02.2011 um 02:45 schrieb Ben Walton:
>> Excerpts from Peter Bonivart's message of Sun Feb 06 00:06:37 -0500 2011:
>> 
>>>> 1.2.3,pi,REV=YYYY.MM.DD
>>> 
>>> This is the best in my opinion. Let's treat it as flags and only
>>> allow to pick from a fixed list to keep it from getting carried away
>>> and be easily checked.
>> 
>> Agreed.  Does anyone _not_ like this choice?
>> 
>>> p = patched
>>> i = i386 only
>>> s = sparc only
>> 
>> Works for me.  Anything else that would be useful to define at the
>> outset here?
>
> Two things:
> - Lets remove i/s as it is good to always release a bundle. The i386 only
>   was used in the past if someone made a manual mistake during packaging and
>   wanted to respin i386 only. This is IMHO generally bad. If an error occurs
>   all packages should be rebuild. Introducing extra complexity to allow for
>   manual patching is not a good idea. We should focus on full automation and
>   the flag is useless for this.

I generally agree with you but I have the feeling that if there is a
packaged project which have sense only on a given platform it should be
possible to deliver only that; but this doesn't require the usage of a
flag, it only requires the relaxation of the "bundle" rule.

> - If the "p" flag is present there should be checkpkg-check that
>   /opt/csw/share/doc/<catalogname>/README.CSW is present.

Absolutely right.
-- 
Peter