packaging November 2007

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
10 discussions

Tcl packaging guidelines proposal
by Michael Thomas 02 Jan '08

02 Jan '08

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) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Tcl Please let me know if I need to do anything to help get these draft guidelines adopted. Thanks, --Wart

4 10

fortran .mod files
by Patrice Dumas 05 Dec '07

05 Dec '07

Hello, 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 %_libdir %_libdir/include %_libdir/modules %_libdir/mod %_libdir/f90 %_includedir/%_lib %_includedir/%_lib/modules %_includedir/%_lib/mod %_includedir/%_lib/f90 (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 directories? My second is, in case it is meaningful, what about my proposal regarding rpm macros? -- Pat

12 31

Wrong use of Backslash in Packaging Guidelines (libexecdir)
by Till Maas 27 Nov '07

27 Nov '07

Aloas, at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-69ef16dbc0ecb520d4c… there is written: | Packagers are highly encouraged to store libexecdir files in a | package-specific subdirectory of %{_libexecdir}, such | as %{_libexecdir}\%{name}. The last word should be: %{_libexecdir}/%{name} Regards, Till

2 1

Re: [Long] Do we need a font SIG ?
by Nicolas Mailhot 26 Nov '07

26 Nov '07

Le Lun 26 novembre 2007 15:51, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit : > > On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 13:51 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> 7. The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our >> FLOSS rules >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9cf7… >> [for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids >> modification, making it non-free >> http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html] > > Open a bug report. Let's start the process of having it removed in F9. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=317641 >> 8. There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote >> FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/) they are aligned with >> Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far >> (cf Liberation licensing choices) > > Keep in mind that Liberation licensing was a Red Hat, Inc decision, > not > a Fedora decision. > > Also, we haven't totally ignored the OFL, since it is listed as the > "preferred" font license on the Fedora licensing page: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts Wasn't the case when I wrote this :p Many thanks, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: [Long] Do we need a font SIG ?
by Tom Callaway 26 Nov '07

26 Nov '07

On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 13:51 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > 7. The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our > FLOSS rules > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9cf7… > [for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids > modification, making it non-free > http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html] Open a bug report. Let's start the process of having it removed in F9. > 8. There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote > FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/) they are aligned with > Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far > (cf Liberation licensing choices) Keep in mind that Liberation licensing was a Red Hat, Inc decision, not a Fedora decision. Also, we haven't totally ignored the OFL, since it is listed as the "preferred" font license on the Fedora licensing page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts ~spot

1 0

Reviewer needed (difficulty: easy!)
by Michel Salim 17 Nov '07

17 Nov '07

It's a Scheme compiler that has minimal build dependency (gmp-devel), and bootstraps itself from an included image in about 10 seconds (not including the time it takes for the autotools to run). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=367121 Thanks in advance, -- Michel Salim http://hircus.jaiku.com/

1 0

Reminder of meeting
by Tom Callaway 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

This is a reminder to all FPC members (including myself): We will be meeting next Tuesday, November 20th, at 1700 UTC. Thanks in advance, ~spot

1 0

Unfinished business from last week's meeting
by Jason L Tibbitts III 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

We had an incomplete vote at the last meeting: * Specifying the root directory for LTSP as /var/lib/ltsp * Not yet accepted (4 - 0) * Voting for: abadger1999 rdieter spot tibbs Could other folks weigh in on this soon, so that I can pass this onto FESCo? Also, we decided that the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ServerProvides draft should be pushed via the feature process, and FESCo had no issues with this. However, my understanding is that Patrice does not want to do that. If that's the case, we seem to be at an impasse. How do we drive this issue forward? - J<

3 3

Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation
by Nicolas Mailhot 03 Nov '07

03 Nov '07

Le vendredi 02 novembre 2007 à 20:09 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : > Yes, please no legacy font system crap. Documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy > My only comment on the SpecTemplate is that with new fontconfig in > rawhide, there's no need to force fc-cache anymore. Added to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsSpecTemplate Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

2 4

Fonts spec template validation
by Nicolas Mailhot 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

Hi all, While the current spec template in the Fonts SIG wiki (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/SpecTemplate) only documents common Fedora Fonts packaging practices, it's never been formally approved. 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 Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

3 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging November 2007