lpf-* packages review process.

[Alec Leamas]

On 2013-11-26 04:20, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sex, 2013-11-22 at 13:32 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
>> With the lpf package under way to fedora stable and the first lpf-*
>> packages on their way into rpmfusion  there is an issue with the review
>> process fo llpf-* packages (an lpf package).
>>
>> An lpf package is basically a wrapper for  the spec for a target
>> package. E. g. lpf-skype contains lpf.skype.spec and skype.spec.in (see
>> [1]).
>>
>> Formally, when reviewing the lpf-skype package a reviewer should review
>> the package spec i. e., lpf-skype.spec. However, this is just some
>> copy-paste code which is more or less the same for all lpf packages.
>> It's still evolving, but it should be  more or less a non-issue when
>> reviewing.
>>
>> However, each lpf package contains a target spec, skype.spec.in in the
>> example. This is the real stuff, the package user installs after
>> building it. IMHO, the target spec should be  the real issue when
>> reviewing. In a short perspective, I'm trying to keep this lpf thing in
>> a limited number of hands, so this is not a concern right now.
>>
>> However, I think it's time to formalize this for rpmfusion. Since lpf
>> packages are rpmfusion only, we cannot lean on the Fedora review
>> guidelines for this. Even the tooling (fedora-review) is totally blind
>> for the target package. Which boils down to a simple question: should we
>> have a rpmfusion rule that when reviewing lpf packages the target spec
>> and package  should be reviewed somehow (as well as the "normal" spec,
>> normally a non-issue)?  Or should we just close our eyes, since we dont
>> distribute the target packages?
> Hi,
> Brilliant idea !. Second though: I don't believe that lpf is made in
> bash, I know that you can do all with bash but so many lines!, it could
> be done in so many languages, I prefer Python , but with Perl you could
> do much more easy scripting .
There already is some python in lpf. Rewriting in python is on the 
TODO-list (after having unit tests in place). That said, most scripts 
are 50-150 lines and executes < ~300 lines. It's not that bad, and IMHO 
within the limits what you can do reasonably sane with bash.  I have 
been using both python and perl, but I choose bash here  (besides som 
python GUI windows) just to get it up and running quickly.
>   
> Yes , we need do some rules :), for example seems to me that License of
> lpf-something.spec should be the license of something.spec.in , and
> others fields too.
In the examples, I have set the Name and Version field to match the 
target package (name with a lpf- prefix). However, I don't think setting 
the license of the lpf package to the same as the target package is 
correct. The whole point here is that the target package license is 
non-redistributable. If we use that for the lpf package, it sort of just 
doesn't work.


--alec