Re: Cross-distro collaboration for lcdproc packaging ?

On Mar 22, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Dominique Dumont wrote:

> Hello
> 
> I've prepared an update of lcdproc package for Debian. Instead of keeping the 
> work for myself and my distro, I think it would be more interesting for 
> everybody to be able to share the work.
> 
> For this, we have some choices on how to proceed on sharing work.
> 
> First on sharing knowledge (i.e. where should we discuss packaging issues):
> - Create and use a lcdproc-packaging mailing list
> - use this list
> 
> For sharing packages files:
> - Fling patches around on a mailing list
> - create a separate repository for package files
> - archive package file on lcdproc upstream CVS.
> 
> Personally, I think lcdproc project would probably learn interesting stuff 
> from packaging issues, so I would favor using this list for packaging 
> discussion (as long as it does not generate too much traffic).
> 
> Regarding package files, the best would be the latter option. Once we decided 
> on the best way to share files, I'll send the files I've prepared for Debian.
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> Are there other distro packagers lurking on this list ?

I am (or was?) one of the co-maintainers of the Fedora lcdproc
packages. Or maybe I've just committed to them. Regardless, I know
the Fedora packaging process pretty well. An rpm spec file really
doesn't belong in the upstream scm, as far as I'm concerned. They
are far too distro-specific, and often need updating by people
other than those without core package scm commit access. Even if
the Fedora spec were added to an upstream scm repo, it would have
to be duplicated into Fedora's packaging scm, and then maintained
in two different places. No thanks. :)

As for patches, all of them should be posted to this list for
consideration for merging. Ideally, your package shouldn't have to
carry any patches at all for any extended period of time. Knowing
some of the non-patch hacks done via scripting in package creation
tools/specs/whatever could be useful to air as well, to make them
unnecessary, so I suppose at least periodically reviewing packaging
files wouldn't be such a bad idea.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
[email protected]