Bugzilla

(In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #11)
> As a former Fedora packager, I remember there being robust guidelines for .spec files. Is what we're using here at the intersection of various distros' policies? Should we take a look to see if we're missing any best practices?

FWIW I checked out a few download/releases pages for other Browsers and they tend to target Fedora/openSUSE. Also, it seems if it works in Fedora there's a good chance it works on Fedora/Rocky/RHEL.

I am looking through the [Fedora Packaging Guidelines](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/) (it seems to be one of the most detailed and well maintained sets of guidelines.) Most of them should be useful on RPM-based distributions (specially the ones downstream of Fedora.)

I was also looking at the [openSUSE Packaging Guidelines](https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines) (which is not Fedora based.)

That seems like a good starting point.

I saw that RHEL [7](https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/rpm_packaging_guide/index) and [8](https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html-single/packaging_and_distributing_software/index) have some documentation. I skimmed these too. Looking at their enterprise-focused packaging approach got me thinking about our `.rpm` package's release cycles cadence and support windows (à la ESR.)

(In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #11)
> As a former Fedora packager, I remember there being robust guidelines for .spec files. Is what we're using here at the intersection of various distros' policies? Should we take a look to see if we're missing any best practices?

FWIW I checked out a few download/releases pages for other Browsers and they tend to target Fedora/openSUSE. Also, it seems if it works in Fedora there's a good chance it works on Fedora/Rocky/RHEL.

I am looking through the [Fedora Packaging Guidelines](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/) (it seems to be one of the most detailed and well maintained sets of guidelines.) Most of them should be useful on RPM-based distributions (specially ones downstream of Fedora.)

I was also looking at the [openSUSE Packaging Guidelines](https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines) (which is not Fedora based.)

That seems like a good starting point.

I saw that RHEL [7](https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/rpm_packaging_guide/index) and [8](https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html-single/packaging_and_distributing_software/index) have some documentation. I skimmed these docs too. Looking at their enterprise-focused packaging approach got me thinking about our `.rpm` package's release cycle cadence and support windows (à la ESR.)

(In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #11)
> As a former Fedora packager, I remember there being robust guidelines for .spec files. Is what we're using here at the intersection of various distros' policies? Should we take a look to see if we're missing any best practices?

FWIW I checked out a few download/releases pages for other Browsers and they tend to target Fedora/openSUSE. Also, it seems if it works in Fedora there's a good chance it works on Fedora/Rocky/RHEL.

I am looking through the [Fedora Packaging Guidelines](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/) (it seems to be one of the most detailed and well maintained sets of guidelines.) Most of them should be useful on RPM-based distributions (specially ones downstream of Fedora.)

I was also looking at the [openSUSE Packaging Guidelines](https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines) (which is not Fedora based.)

That seems like a good starting point.

I saw that RHEL [7](https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/rpm_packaging_guide/index) and [8](https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html-single/packaging_and_distributing_software/index) have some documentation. I skimmed these docs too. Their enterprise focus got me thinking we should prioritize getting ESR `.rpm`

(In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #11)
> As a former Fedora packager, I remember there being robust guidelines for .spec files. Is what we're using here at the intersection of various distros' policies? Should we take a look to see if we're missing any best practices?

FWIW I checked out a few download/releases pages for other Browsers and they tend to target Fedora/openSUSE. Also, it seems if it works in Fedora there's a good chance it works on Fedora/Rocky/RHEL.

I am looking through the [Fedora Packaging Guidelines](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/) (it seems to be one of the most detailed and well maintained sets of guidelines.) Most of them should be useful on RPM-based distributions (specially ones downstream of Fedora.)

I was also looking at the [openSUSE Packaging Guidelines](https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines) (which is not Fedora based.)

That seems like a good starting point.