I see that the {package ..} macro on the wiki currently takes one to the src.fp.o page for the source package. Would it be better to send it to the new packages app perhaps, where one can link to to the sub-packages and so on too, instead of just the source package?
{package ..}
An example is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing#Using_fedora-easy-karma/fedora-update-feedback
I added info about the fedora-update-feedback package, but using the {package.. } template, I can only link to the source package, which is rust-.... The package that a user has to install, though, is fedora-update-feedback, not the rust... source package.
fedora-update-feedback
{package.. }
rust-...
rust...
The new package app also provides lots of other functions, like deps and file lists etc., which are more useful for users. src.fp.o is really more aimed at us package maintainers.
Whenever convenient please
I don't think we will change the macro itself, it would retroactively change all pages that are using it.
That said I am not sure it is even possible.
a simple substitution will result in 404
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/fedora-update-feedback
because it also scrapes src.fp.o so the correct link is
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/rust-fedora-update-feedback/fedora-update-feedback/
One could use the search query, where the package will always come up as the first result?
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/search?query=fedora-update-feedback
Maybe a new macro would be a better way to go then? {pkgsapp| rust-fedora-update-feedback/fedora-update-feedback}, or the search query url?
{pkgsapp| rust-fedora-update-feedback/fedora-update-feedback}
Actually, even if goes to the src package on the packages app, that's still fine because it also shows all the subpackages:
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/rust-fedora-update-feedback/
New macro was my first idea. Yeah if you are ok with the search query here is new template https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:PackageNew
Metadata Update from @phsmoura: - Issue priority set to: Waiting on Assignee (was: Needs Review) - Issue tagged with: low-gain, low-trouble, ops
So, whats the status here? Completed and folks can use the new macro if they choose?
+1, I think the new macro is good.
Thanks very much @humaton
Metadata Update from @ankursinha: - Issue close_status updated to: Fixed - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Log in to comment on this ticket.