Bug 445797
Summary: | Review Request: erlsom - Support for XML Schema in Erlang | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-06-22 04:27:38 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Peter Lemenkov
2008-05-09 08:56:50 UTC
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to name this erlang-erlsom. The only erlang package we have currently is erlang-esdl, so there's not much precedent, but it's worth considering. I don't think that's a good idea to resolve the lack ot Groups (and absence of tags) in rpm (and therefore yum). We should populate /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS instead of making silly prefixes as erlang-something, fuse-something, ocaml-something, perl-something etc. I think it worths to discuss in fedora-devel. Well, I guess you're welcome to make that argument on fedora-devel if you wish. Perhaps write up a proposal to change the existing guidelines which specifically mention erlang addons. However, please note: Fedora doesn't use groups. It doesn't matter what you put there; we don't care. Your solution doesn't address issues like: ruby-gtk2, perl-Gtk2 perl-LDAP, ruby-ldap, python-ldap, php-ldap python-mecab, ruby-mecab, perl-mecab python-mechanize, ruby-mechanize So, honestly, please adhere to the current guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines or indicate how this package is not covered by them. (I know pretty much zilch about erlang, so maybe I'm missing something.) So should I assume that you won't rename this package or provide some evidence that the existing guidelines shouldn't apply? If not, I suppose this ticket cannot progress and should be closed. I don't recall seeing any discussions on fedora-devel, and no proposals for changing the guidelines have come before the packaging committee. OK, closing this ticket. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 502991 *** |