@packagers: please check that your packages are properly listed in the comps files

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 10.09.2008 12:51, Karel Volný wrote:
>> - check the list of packages you own by looking at
>> free/owners.list and nonfree/owners.list
> well, ufoai and ufoai-data are in free while these were moved to 
> nonfree...

One of those mistakes I might have corrected if I had looked closer at 
it yesterday. Sorry.

> so I should cut&paste these lines? -

Yes please.

> or "Changes to this file must be done by a CVS admin."?

/me is not sure if he can follow

Well, my initial mail (the one you replied to) wouldn't make much sense 
if only CVS admins could edit those comps files, wouldn't it? ;-)

>> - make sure all the *binary* packages that get built from the
>> packages you maintain are listed in one of the groups of each
>> comps files; e.g {non,}free/comps/comps-{el5, f8, f9,
>> f10}.xml.in; if they are missing add them, just like you would
>> do for Fedora;
> and how would I do that in Fedora? :)
> 
> I've found 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CompsXml ... so 
> that I should add
> 
> <packagereq type="optional">qmmp-plugins-freeworld</packagereq>
> to the group rpmfusion_free-sound-and-video in free, 

Yes.

> and
> 
> <packagereq type="optional">ufoai</packagereq>
> <packagereq type="optional">ufoai-data</packagereq>
> <packagereq type="optional">ufoai-doc</packagereq>
> 
> to the group rpmfusion_nonfree-games in nonfree?

ufoai: Yes

Not sure about ufoai-data and ufoai-doc. I'd say those normally should 
simply get tracked in automatically when installing ufoai (that's iirc 
how it working today). Thus the user should not be bugged with it, thus 
they should not be in the rpmfusion_nonfree-games group IMHO.

OTOH: The Fedora rule iirc is "all packages need to be in comps.xml"; do 
we want to follow that?

If not let's simply ignore packages like ufoai-data and ufoai-doc in 
comps.xml.

If yes: maybe we should create a hidden group which contains those 
packages that the users normally don't needs to deal with directly.

Opinions? I have no strong feelings, but I think I prefer the hidden 
group approach a bit.

> umm ... I see ufoai packages are not built yet

Huhu? They are there:

http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/updates/testing/8/x86_64/ufoai-2.2.1-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/updates/testing/9/x86_64/ufoai-2.2.1-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/development/x86_64/os/ufoai-2.2.1-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm

CU
knurd