Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1448451 (qt5-doc)
Summary: | Review Request: qt5-doc - Qt5 - Complete documentation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Helio Chissini de Castro <helio> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Rex Dieter <rdieter> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | kevin, package-review, rdieter |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | rdieter:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-11-20 19:06:40 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 928937 |
Description
Helio Chissini de Castro
2017-05-05 12:43:20 UTC
Thanks for trying this out and showing that it can be done, but I do not agree with this approach at all. From a user perspective, even if you want to build qt5-doc from a single SRPM, you still have to split it into subpackages, possibly with a metapackage that requires them all. What's the point of splitting qt5-* including -devel if -doc is monolithic? And doing things this way is an issue for QtWebEngine because QtWebEngine can be upgraded without the rest of Qt (as has been done for 5.8), and so the docs in this monolithic package (or even in a subpackage of it if you introduce them) will not match the actual package. Therefore, in my role of the QtWebEngine maintainer, I explicitly disapprove the Obsoletes on qt5-qtwebengine-doc. (And as I wrote on IRC, I also disagree with this approach on technical grounds, because you are no longer building the documentation from source in the specfile, it has to be manually prepared (in a process that takes hours) before even generating the SRPM.) I can review this re: comment #1 I agree with Kevin in general. 1. Ideally we'll want to create a bunch of subpkgs + umbrella metapackage instead of this initial monolithic approach. That said, I won't consider that a review blocker, and we can implement that after import. 2. In the case of qtwebengine, when/if we have to, we can omit its docs from here as needed. The split can be done now, but then will end up in subpackages that will be broken as well. To mention, for example, let's say that i will install qt5-doc-qtdeclarative, and inside it we have links for doc from qtbase, qtxmlpatterns, etc, etc.. So we will need to require this packages on the subpackage. Unless we create a script to parse all documentation to discover all the requires, this will be very difficult to track. The solution of have the parent meta package solve this, but then, if someone decide to install one single module, we will end up in the same situation as before. I can't understand why this is a big deal, because i don't see anyone complaining on old package qt4 doc that is big and monolithic as well. The whole Qt 4 was monolithic, so of course the -doc package was, too. And I don't see the big deal if a link to, e.g., QtCore is broken if you don't have QtCore docs installed, that's IMHO completely expected. Updated with splitted individual packages Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/@kdesig/qt-5.9/qt5-doc.git/tree/qt5-doc.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/%40kdesig/qt-5.9/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00549587-qt5-doc/qt5-doc-5.9.0-0.beta.3.fc27.src.rpm Thanks. Release: Naming: ok License: ok Sources: ok (generating script included). macros: ok 1. SHOULD use %{_qt5_docdir} instead of %{_docdir} macro, ie, replace %{_docdir}/qt5/ references with just: %{_qt5_docdir} 2. subpackage deps SHOULD use full version-release, like: Requires: qt5-qtbase-doc = %{version}-%{release} scriplets: n/a 3. SHOULD use proper Release tag, something like Release: 0.3.beta3%{?dist} instead of existing Release: 0.beta.3%{?dist} style I won't consider these blockers, and can easily be fixed after import. APPROVED Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/qt5-doc This was imported long ago, closing |