Search results

...[[Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires|BuildRequires]] section of Packaging Guidelines. This section talks only about using rpmdev-rmdevelrpms to detect missing B [[Category:Archived packaging guideline drafts]]

= Update to the R Guidelines = Everything below this text is proposed as new sections for the R Guidelines

{{Deprecated | It is now contained in the [[Packaging/Ruby| Ruby guidelines]]}} = Packaging Ruby Gems =

== Current Text from Packaging/Guidelines for the FileAndDirectoryOwnership subsection == [[Category:Archived packaging guideline drafts]]

{{admon/note | FPC | This proposal was reviewed and approved by FPC on [[Packaging:Minutes/20090106|2009-01-06]].}} ...ackagers wasting time as they find new “interesting” ways to interpret the guidelines.

Suggested clarification to packaging guidelines when to use Provides and Obsoletes, and when only Obsoletes: [[Category:Archived packaging guideline drafts]]

= BuildRoot Guidelines = There was an id -un based buildroot as a suggestion in the guidelines ("preferred"). This lead to some reviewers to block submission because they

...ease remember to use a Name-version-release compatible with the [wiki:Self:Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageVersion Version] and ...ease Release] Guidelines. In particular, check the section on [wiki:Self:Packaging/NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages Naming Snapshots] .

This exception was added to the guidelines when it was common practise to have many of the Fedora specific tools not a [[Category:Archived packaging guideline drafts]]

== Current guidelines == ...f pre-built binaries or libraries [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries] are''

...ndependent problems, and that the latter is/should-be outside the scope of packaging guidlines. Core cabal disagrees, postponing ACK of this proposal pending r == gtk icon cache coherency brainstorm (not part of packaging guidelines) ==

...ted by FPC. FPC has no problems with having this in a section outside the Guidelines and linking to it.}} [[Category:Archived packaging guideline drafts]]

= Lisp Packaging Guidelines = ...ument seeks to document the conventions and customs surrounding the proper packaging of Common Lisp implementations and libraries in Fedora.

...dy ratified|The final and ratified version of this draft is available at [[Packaging/SourceURL]]}} ...ease remember to use a Name-version-release compatible with the [wiki:Self:Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageVersion Version] and

{{admon/note | FPC | This proposal was reviewed and approved by FPC on [[Packaging/Minutes/20081209|2008-12-09]].}} {{Admon/warning | Where are the guidelines? |

This is a proposal to make some changes to the [[Packaging:Ada|Ada packaging guidelines]]. ...ory. If I understand the process right it should be moved to the Packaging guidelines category.

* This is a clarification of existing Guidelines and does not require a vote unless objections are raised * This will live at Packaging/UnownedDirectories

= OCaml Packaging Guidelines = ...ument seeks to document the conventions and customs surrounding the proper packaging of ocaml modules in Fedora. It does not intend to cover all situations, bu

'''This draft document is obsolete. The approved JPackage adoption guidelines are found here: [wiki:Self:Packaging/JPackagePolicy Subrelease Packaging Guidelines for JPackage RPMS] '''

= Packaging Ada programs and libraries = ...delines|Packaging Guidelines]] and the [[Packaging:ReviewGuidelines|Review Guidelines]].