I sent this proposal to f-m-l about a week ago to gather comments, and
there were no serious disagreements with the proposal which have not yet
been addressed (thanks to Tibbs and Toshio for their feedback).
Basically, I want to establish a set of guidelines for packaging Tcl
extensions, as we already have guidelines for other popular scripting
languages. In addition to making Tcl packages more consistent with each
other, it will also help work toward fixing my pet-peeve bug (bz #226893)
Please let me know if I need to do anything to help get these draft
Currently there is no guideline regarding fortran 90 .mod, it seems to
me that one is needed. These files are generated by gfortran when
building a module. These are text files, but not intended to be read by
humans. They are architecture dependent. When compiling some code that
uses the module, the .mod has to be found in the include path (for
example in a directory specified by -I).
Where should the .mod be installed? I propose
(f90 may also be replaced by another meaningfull subdirectory name).
This directory could be called %_fmoddir
And add -I%_fmoddir in FFLAGS when compiling some code that
requires the module.
The optimal situation would be to have %_fmoddir defined in rpm macros
and -I%_fmoddir added to default FFLAGS.
So my first question is what is your advice about fortran modules
My second is, in case it is meaningful, what about my proposal regarding
While the current spec template in the Fonts SIG wiki
documents common Fedora Fonts packaging practices, it's never been
I intend to submit it to FPC soon.
If anyone on the fonts list object to part of this page or wants
something clarified, please speak now
The linux terminal project needs a directory for the filesystems
exported to the terminals. Upstream uses /opt/ltsp. Upstream asked the
lsb/fhs, but nobody answered something definitive, and nobody said that
/opt/ltsp was wrong when upstream proposed it.
In fedora, I think that /opt/ltsp is not very good. I asked on devel
list and people objected to /opt/ltsp, proposing /var/lib/ltsp and
/srv/ltsp. (as a side note, it is in fact along /opt/ltsp5/i386 and
so on and so forth but it isn't of major interest, the issue is about
the directory the ltsp directory should be in).
What is your recommentdation?
Recently metapackages have been rearing their ugly head again, and
there is some disagreement on the proper use case and limits of
I'd like FPC to clarify the Fedora policy on metapackages and publish
this policy in the wiki
Many packages dump their aclocal files in /usr/share/aclocal, but really
don't need to require automake for normal usage. Should all of these
packages also own /usr/share/aclocal, or should it get moved to filesystem?
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
Le Mer 24 octobre 2007 13:53, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> If anyone on the fonts list object to part of this page or wants
>> something clarified, please speak now
> Maybe I am demanding too much, but I would hae liked to have
> explanation on what to do for all of the different fonts, bitmap
> truetype fonts and type1 fonts (latex fonts?). There is nothing about
> for example.
Well nothing stops anyone from pushing a legacy font template through
the Fonts SIG later (either by extending this one or by writing
another). It's up to the packagers of these legacy fonts to agree in
the SIG on a proposal. Right now no one wrote a legacy fonts template,
so there's nothing to submit to FPC.
I wrote down the virtual provides for server listening on a given port
for consideration by the packaging commitee.
If you know about existing virtual provides like smtpdaemon or
webserver, you can tell them to me such that I inspect them, even if the
proposal is not accepted.
I sent this on the devel list, nobody responded.
ltsp5 requires an xdmcp server, but more than one package provides the
functionnality. What about adding a virtual provides for local servers
This could also be used for smtpdaemon and webserver, which would become
server(smtp) and server(web) (or server(http))?
What do you think about that idea?
many packages contain executable scripts (shell, perl, etc.)
In most cases, these scripts have +x set in the fedora CVS.
(After a quick inspection, I see that all *.init scripts in the
fedora packages which I happen to have checked out have +x set.)
Please note as long as we use CVS for Fedora and the cvs://... URLs
in koji, we are not able to change flags of an existing file without
a rename or a server side hack. (A limitation of CVS.)
I reported the problem upstream, but I was told that this feature is
Could you please change the configuration for Fedora rpmlint?