|
|
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{autolang|base=yes}}
| | {{admon/warning|Only members of the Packaging Committee (FPC) can edit pages in the Packaging hierarchy. FPC does not read these discussion pages. Please discuss these pages on the packaging mailing list, and open tickets at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee to request changes.}} |
| {{lang|en|es|page=Packaging_talk:Guidelines}}
| |
| {{admon/tip|Here is [[Packaging:Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedure|the procedure for proposing changes to the guidelines]]. Simply commenting here may not do any good.}} | |
| | |
| == Broken internal links ==
| |
| | |
| Exceptions is used as an id to an <a> tag twice, and as a result, the two different links to #Exceptions (which should be different) do not work properly.
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Look for string ",so" and change it to ".so".
| |
| | |
| == libs subpackages ==
| |
| | |
| Should there be some info on naming / reasons for having -libs subpackages in here somewhere?
| |
| | |
| == Layout update. ==
| |
| | |
| In "Packaging Static Libraries"
| |
| Could we get a layout update so that the points 1 and 2 both start on new lines.
| |
| | |
| == Patch Upstream Status ==
| |
| Is this a Guideline? I guess so, because it is in the Packaging Namespace, but it is only linked from [[PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo]]
| |
| | |
| [[Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus]]
| |
| --[[User:Till|Till]] 10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Noticed [[Packaging/Guidelines#tags]] has 2 broken links to www.rpm.org
| |
| | |
| == Versioned Requires ==
| |
| | |
| Guideline states
| |
| Second, the Epoch must be listed when adding a versioned dependency to achieve robust epoch-version-release comparison. A quick way to check the Epoch of package foo is to run:
| |
| rpm --query --qf "%{EPOCH}\n" packagename
| |
| | |
| However, if this returns (null), the package has no epoch. Therefore Requires: cannot include an epoch.
| |
