While Debian have versioned guidelines, and tracks the last version checked in the packages Fedora has none of this. I'm raising this as some open questions:
While this would make the fedora-review maintenance easier, it is obviously not the important issue here.
devel thread here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4DA76SDSIJSTSPFWGYH6PKMSRMYC522Q/
The guideline pages are already versioned; that's why we have a wiki. I'd think that packagers could indicate that their package conforms to the guidelines as of some date if they wanted to indicate that. I personally don't see any use in codifying that unless some heretofore unseen army of package reviewers have appeared and cleaned the existing queue of pending reviews. Maybe if that were done there would be some spare effort to be used to re-review some existing packages.
Personally I'm not interested in adding or maintaining additional version formalization to the guideline pages; I already devote more time to maintaining them than I really should and don't want to introduce additional process which would only make that worse. We already have a reasonable mechanism for tracking changes over time (i.e. the wiki).
Note that some documents used to have version numbers but I believe by now I've removed most of them. Nobody ever updated them in any case.
Replying to [ticket:646 leamas]:
Would we benefit from having actual releases of the GL? Would we benefit form tracking the last version of the GL checked in the packages, similar to haw Debian do?
I am not familiar with Debian processes. Would you care to enumerate what problems would be solved by doing this?
Right now, I tend to agree with tibbs: This sounds like busy work.
The basic problem addressed by the Debian workflow is "Updating Packages to current GL."
As josh agreed in the ML thread, the basic package lifecycle is that it is reviewed to current standards, and after that start lagging from the actual standards. To which extent depends on the maintainer.
Debian addresses this using:
The state of the "last-GL-version-used" header is easily checked by tools like rpmlint. It's then up to the maintainer to either leave it as-is, just update the header or actually reading the GL release notes and fix what should be fixed before updating the header. It's far from fool-proof, but it gives a hint to maintainers to update the package. And, not least, some help on how.
Please note that I'm not really arguing that we should do this, I'm just asking a question if we can learn something from this workflow. After all, that packages lag from the current GL is an obvious problem.
After all, that packages lag from the current GL is an obvious problem.
That's true, but I think he biggest part of this problem (from my perspective) is lack of resource, not lack of process -- if we did this, there would need to be a commitment from... someone... to actively update packages according to latest guidelines.
Anecdotally, I tend to update for guideline changes when I touch the spec file for other reasons. (I.e. New upstream version? May as well migrate to use that fancy new macro too.) But I don't have time to inspect all my (nearly 100) packages every time there are guideline changes.
The responsible person is IMHO the package maintainer; full stop.
That said, perhaps the point here is that Debian offers some support for maintainers which are willing to update their packages that Fedora doesn't. In fedora:
Your anecdotal story is from a person maintaining the GL. As such you know what has changed. We mere mortal doesn't.
The lack of resources is of course the main problem. But perhaps it would be possible to make the updating task easier for maintainers somehow. And perhaps this would make packages somewhat more aligned with current GL, dunno.
It was josh who made me file this as a fpc ticket. Given the state of this discussion it might perhaps be better to just close the ticket and possibly continue in devel. I have just a vague idea that Debian handles something we don't, and that something could be learned.
Ok, for the sake of discussion: adapting the debian update process for fedora.
Adapting this workflow would give package maintainers a hint about updating to current GL, and more focused documentation on how to make this update, all in all making this task easier.
FWIW, the taskotron checks on Standards-Version would also give a hint about packages which are not maintained at all, not even on the level to update this field.
Again, this is not to say this is what we should do, it's merely putting some flesh this idea in order to contribute to the discussion.
We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-09-15/fpc.2016-09-15-16.01.txt):
The bottom line here is, I think, that there are plenty of things we can take away from the idea, but that we don't actually want to do this. Emulating Debian policy is rather not something we are able, or even want, to do.
Some specific points:
I'm starting various other initiatives to clean up packages and otherwise detect guidelines conformance where possible, but this is an enormously difficult task that it will take some time. Until our packaging in general is in a cleaner state, doing much else would just not be productive (especially when it takes time away from what we really need to be doing).
Metadata Update from @james: - Issue assigned to tibbs
Login to comment on this ticket.