packaging January 2006

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
4 discussions

Python eggs
by Alan Milligan 31 Jan '06

31 Jan '06

Hi, Unfortunately, the Python community is becoming intoxicated with eggs! Is there a strategy (preferably backed by rpm macros) to deal with this - ie sanely packaging all egg'd installed prerequisites?? Alan

5 5

Specfile suggestion for subpackages with differently linked binaries
by Andreas Thienemann 28 Jan '06

28 Jan '06

Hi, I'm currently trying to package ser, the sip express router. Depending on the variables passed at compile time, the resulting binary is either linking against mysql or postgresql. IN order not to pull in unneeded dependencies I'd like to package it as ser (no database support/no persistant storage), ser-mysql, ser-pgsql and ser-common for the rest Is there a template/example spec file somewhere detailing how one would package such a software? Right now I'm wondering how to manage the %install phase and how to get the binaries with the same name, but different dependencies installed and listed in the %files section. thx, andreas

2 2

Re: Replacing LAM with OpenMPI in Fedora Core
by Orion Poplawski 26 Jan '06

26 Jan '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ed Hill wrote: > On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 11:59 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Ed Hill wrote: >>> I understand that OpenMPI is supposed to [at least, for some people's >>> perception! ;-)] become the "one true MPI" implementation that eclipses >>> all others due to its very cool new modular design and other features. >>> But, even so, I think it would be a good idea to have and maintain other >>> MPI versions (such as MPICH v1 & v2, LAM, etc.) in Extras so that people >>> have some flexibility. And to do that, we'll very likely need to setup >>> the multiple MPI packages using alternatives. >> >> While we are thinking about this, it would be good to be able to support >> multiple versions of a particular MPI compiled with different compilers. >> Locally I maintain LAM compiled with PGF90 and IFORT and it would be >> nice to be able to have all three installed simultaneously. > > Hi Orion, > > Yes, we also have groups of machines where we maintain combinations of > compilers, MPI libs, etc.: > > MPI: LAM, mpich, mpich-vmi, etc. > Compilers: GNU (multiple versions), Intel, PGI, etc. > > and we do it with an install framework that looks something like: > > /opt/pkg/${PKG_NAME} and/or /usr/local/pkg/${PKG_NAME} > > and then let users dynamically chose which packages or combinations of > packages to use with the environment modules scripts: > > http://modules.sourceforge.net/ > > I like the above setup because: > > + its quite flexible and can handle dependencies between > the packages pretty gracefully > + it can be made to work (play nicely!) with the in-Core MPI > setup and/or any number of additional MPI setups which > might be installed (perhas someday?) through Fedora Extras > or local installs > + its an increasingly popular arrangement for scientific and > high-performance computing systems > > I'd like to see as much of the above as possible included in Fedora > Extras and [given what little free time I have! :-)] I'm doing what I > can to try and get the necessary parts packaged, etc. I have a modules > package in progress and will be glad to share my unfinished bits with > anyone who is interested. > > Do you have any objections to the above or maybe suggestions for > improvements? > > Ed > I've been poking around a bit with this using alternatives, and I've think I've reached a dead end with that approach. It's okay for a couple binaries and man pages, but it quickly gets unwieldy with collections of shared libraries and sets of API man pages. Also, alternatives works reasonably well for *system* wide defaults. Less well for per user defaults. I've submitted the modules system for Extras for use there. So, what are the restrictions in Fedora as to where we can install things? In particular, I think we may need to install most of the binaries somewhere other than /usr/bin, and we *definitely* need the man3 pages somewhere other than /usr/share/man/man3 (and maybe the rest as well). How to we switch default paths between different bin and man directories? Entries in /etc/profile.d managed via alternatives? Some bugs tracking this discussion: Bug 178967 ? Future of lam - use alternatives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178967 Bug 173719 ? Review Request: openmpi - a new MPI implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173719 Bug 171993 ? Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171993 - - Orion -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD2W5RORnzrtFC2/sRAvDpAJwLTjdtmiKU4iZSTa1LUSNzI8I+NQCfRffM lFHmzvw3LTP5N6YMdTH+61U= =0Vu5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Heads-up: "RFC: kernel-modules in Fedora Extras" now on fedora-extras-list
by Thorsten Leemhuis 06 Jan '06

06 Jan '06

Hi all! Sorry for crossposting, but I think a short heads-up is needed here. The Fedora Extras Steering Committee (FESCo) agreed on a standard for packaging kernel-modules in Fedora Extras. To look at the details see this mail: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-January/msg00219.ht… The last chance to comment on it before it is getting used in devel/FC5 is: Now. Please use fedora-extras-list for the discussion -- please don't reply to this mail on this list. Instead click on reply and change the To: field to fedora-extras-list(a)redhat.com (the threading hopefully should work fine if you do it like this). Thanks! CU thl -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging January 2006