packaging October 2006

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

29 participants
19 discussions

Request to drop %(%{__id_u} -n) in preferred buildroot
by Axel Thimm 04 Jan '07

04 Jan '07

Hi, I think the `preferred buildroot' is not really making sense. The above has developed historically out of a misunderstanding in ancient buildroot times. When people were building as root and BuildRoots were defined as %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root, some considered "root" to mean the uid of the builder. Later %release was added and some replaced root with `id -un`. Even later some realized that root was referring to the BuildRoot and in order to play safe added both. I'm using %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root in my packages and someone is now nitpicking on why not using the preferred BuildRoot as given in the guidelines. Instead of locally fighting a BuildRoot battle, I'd better get the guidelines fixed ;) Also consider what this really is about: Deambiguifying the BuildRoot per package makes sense as there may be several build processes sharing the same filesystem (either locally or through NFS), but deambiguifying the build user, too, means that we assume that the same EVR package will be possibly built on the same filesystem by different users? And even simultaneously? It makes more sense to include a conditional epoch or target/arch in the buildroot that the builder. In fact the best thing for a buildsystem is to override the buildroot adding a build-id to it anyway. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

10 23

--vendor fedora, rationale/motivation?
by Rex Dieter 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FedoraDesktopEntryGuidelines: The vendor prefix (desktop-file-install --vendor=...) must be set to fedora". I don't understand the rationale/motivation behind requiring '--vendor fedora' I can, however, see that desktop-file-install's current implementation(*) of prepending %{vendor}- to the .desktop file name has some problems/issues: 1. .desktop filename now varies from upstream 2. --vendor may change when/if Extras bits are pulled into Core and/or RHEL. 3. *In particular*: when users start employing menu editors, since most(all?) of them base their customizations on the .desktop file name. -- Rex (*) If desktop-file-install's implementation instead followed something like kde's practice of using a vendor directory (e.g. /usr/share/applications/kde), then (1) and (3) would no longer be an issue.

4 6

Fedora Packaging Member forking Fedora/Causing problems with community and users
by Christopher Stone 21 Nov '06

21 Nov '06

As you are all probably intimately aware by now, there has been discussions about 3rd party repositories overriding base Fedora packages and creating their own distribution which causes very serious problems for users and damages the community. I suggest that we have a comittee (possibly the packaging comittee) create a wiki page which reviews 3rd party repositories for such things as: - Does the repository have a review process - Does the repository abide by Fedora packaging standards - Does the repository override Fedora base packages and possibly other criteria. This will allow users to see which 3rd party repositories play nice with Fedora, and which ones fork Fedora to create their own distributions, etc. I FIND IT *VERY* DISTRUBING THAT ONE OF THESE REPOSITORY MAINTAINERS IS ON THE FEDORA PACKAGING COMITTEE! Here is an example IRC log that was taken just last night illustrating the problem: 20:40:49 RyeBrye | Trying to get yum to install gtk2-devel from the update repo I get 4 dependency errors 20:41:10 RyeBrye | the first one is gtk2 itself 20:41:17 XulChris | RyeBrye: caused by using atrpms no doubt 20:41:25 RyeBrye | hm 20:41:34 RyeBrye | How can I tell which packages I have installed that came from atrpms? 20:42:00 XulChris | RyeBrye: disable the atrpms repo, and run "yum list extras" 20:43:42 RyeBrye | I'm relatively new to Linux - but it seems that the prevailing opinion is that atrpms = the devil 20:44:23 XulChris | RyeBrye: basically yes, we even attempted to tell AT this, but he refused to listen and accused of of using "FUD" techniques against his repository 20:44:40 RyeBrye | Oh. AT is a person? 20:44:46 XulChris | Axel Thimm 20:45:49 XulChris | RyeBrye: we are trying to put measures in place to prevent repositories from doing this 20:45:59 XulChris | see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250 20:50:06 RyeBrye | Sounds like I should get that "priorities" plugin for yum going to prevent atrpms from going buck-wild installing packages 20:50:39 errr | oh boy, more atrpms "fud" :P 20:50:52 XulChris | RyeBrye: yea, or if you just need a single rpm, try installing it by hand using the rpm command instead of yum, and if it doesnt install, get the srpm file and rebuild the rpm from the srpm 20:51:08 XulChris | errr: lol 20:51:27 errr | that was really getting funny in my inbox the other day 20:51:53 XulChris | ya, what did we get? like 80 messages within 24 hours? :) 20:52:00 errr | maybe more 20:52:00 errr | lol 20:52:04 XulChris | hehe 20:52:11 * rewster is pretty sure atrpms' rpm for Myth doesn't build as-is on stock fedora 20:53:51 * RyeBrye is busy removing a whole lot of crap because atrpms installed a gtk2 package - and just about everything he installed from atrpms (mythtv) depended on it 20:53:56 rewster | err srpm. and I think the OP mentioned having AT for myth. 20:54:18 RyeBrye | or rather... yum is busy removing it 20:54:20 rewster | yeah... which is a bummer. A lot of the faqs for myth just say "use atrpms" 22:09:56 RyeBrye | ATRpms really f*'ed up my system... it installed a gtk2 that - when I removed it - removed just about every darn package I had installed because of dependencies... argggggg 22:10:18 EvilBob | RyeBrye: file a bug with them 22:10:24 autopsy | RyeBrye, don't use ATrpms. 22:10:27 siXy | again? 22:10:28 EvilBob | RyeBrye: PLEASE 22:10:42 errr | lol 22:10:49 RyeBrye | I'm learning my lesson... 22:10:56 RyeBrye | Does livna really have mythtv rpms? 22:10:59 siXy | or are you reffering to the first time? 22:11:02 siXy | no 22:11:05 EvilBob | RyeBrye: sorry you got burned but the maintainer insists that there is not a problem with how he does things 22:11:12 errr | does Alex never come to this IRC? 22:11:24 autopsy | You mean Axel. 22:11:26 siXy | axel is an interesting guy... 22:11:28 EvilBob | errr: Alex who? 22:11:34 RyeBrye | Why doesn't he just make his own damned distro! argh 22:11:40 XulChris | EvilBob: axel thimm (AT) 22:11:43 errr | autopsy: oh maybe I do 22:11:45 siXy | some would say he does 22:11:50 EvilBob | RyeBrye: add that to your bug 22:12:20 errr | I dont follow the room all that close but at least once or twice a week I notice someone in here with the ATrpms sobstory 22:12:52 siXy | but anyways - do like i told you and update, then enable atrpms grab myth and its explicit dependancies then delete the atrpms repo 22:13:13 RyeBrye | siXy - yeah, you are right 22:13:31 EvilBob | never ever update with atRPMs enabled 22:13:44 siXy | its important you update fist tho otherwise when you grab myth that will pull some atrpms pacakges that you really dont want 22:14:11 RyeBrye | is there a way to update without it loading a new kernel? I don't feel like rebuilding all my kernel extensions at the moment 22:14:53 siXy | RyeBrye: do you have a copy of that line to remove all atrpms pacakges? was trying to remember it earlier for someone else 22:14:53 chemaja The bz that XulChris pointed us to (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250) will be the key once it is implemented.

8 16

Re: Missing the meeting today
by Axel Thimm 31 Oct '06

31 Oct '06

I'll not be able to join on IRC today. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

3 3

Rawhide desktop-file-install question
by Paul F. Johnson 28 Oct '06

28 Oct '06

Hi, I'm getting an error when building for rawhide with anything that needs a desktop-file-install section in the %install section. It now asks for category that the software fits into. Do I need to change the --add-category X-Fedora to say --add-category X-Fedora/IDE (for anjuta or monodevelop) or is it --add-category X-Fedora, IDE? TTFN Paul -- "Der einzige Weg, Leute zu kontrollieren ist sie anzulügen" - L. Ron "Ich kann kein Science-Fiction schreiben" Hubbard; Lügner, Betrüger, Fixer und Wohltäter zu niemandem

3 2

--add-category X-Fedora option to desktop-file-install not necessary nor used.
by Jesse Keating 26 Oct '06

26 Oct '06

This just adds noise and cruft to desktop files and spec files. It is not used by anything. Likewise --vendor fedora, but current desktop-file-install requires a vendor even though it isn't in use. We'll be fixing that shortly though. So for now, can I get votes to remove the --add-category X-Fedora line from the guidelines? For the --vendor thing, it should probably stay in for now for older releases since I don't want to see our guidelines get too broken up between what is allowed or disallowed per release. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora

8 11

Missing the meeting today
by Ville Skyttä 24 Oct '06

24 Oct '06

I will miss the packaging meeting today, or at least the first half an hour of it or so. V

4 3

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Packaging into /srv? (was: FHS Compliance?)
by Matthew Miller 23 Oct '06

23 Oct '06

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 03:04:30PM -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > /srv is ridiculous from any sane interpretation. It got in purely because > the people actually doing useful work accidentally briefly got outnumbered > by people with no experience and opinions when it was voted on Well, I certainly don't have your experience. -- Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

1 0

Packaging into /srv? (was: FHS Compliance?)
by Axel Thimm 23 Oct '06

23 Oct '06

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 02:32:20PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 10/19/06, J French <me(a)semitekie.com> wrote: > >Just wondering if there's any intention of moving the default locations > >for Apache's webroot and database files (MySQl, Postgres, et al) to /srv > >where they belong. > > > > Well it could be possible, but the /srv section is left up to the > individual site to dictate layout and not the vendor (if I read the > FHS correctly. That's correct. Furthermore the FHS supports different hierarchies below /srv depending on the site's needs. For example a server hosting project1.org and project2.org would use /srv/project1.org/www and /srv/project2.org/www So /srv should be kept free of any package bits. I'm copying the packaging list, perhaps it's worth noting in the guide. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

5 19

Disabling debuginfo packages
by Michael Schwendt 22 Oct '06

22 Oct '06

I'd like to request the following packaging policy: [...] If a packager uses something with the same effect than %define debug_package %{nil} which disables the automatically built "debuginfo" package, the spec file MUST contain a comment that explains why this is done.

4 9

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging October 2006