packaging August 2007

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

32 participants
30 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

font package naming
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 21 Sep '07

21 Sep '07

Hi, I would like to propose adding the following text to our "Package Naming Guidelines". http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines ''' == Fonts Packages == Font packages should be named with the upstream name appended with `-fonts`. Examples: {{{ bitmap-fonts dejavu-lgc-fonts ghostscript-fonts urw-fonts xorg-x11-fonts }}} ''' Should the text discuss what to do when the upstream name contains the word "font" already? See https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00794.h… and https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-March/msg00262.html for some recent discussion of <upstreamname>-fonts vs fonts-<language> and "-fonts" vs "-font" for singlet font packages. Comments or objections? Jens ps We might even consider renaming some of our "fonts-*" packages to follow this naming scheme for F8.

4 10

Packaging/ScriptletSnippets, fonts section: no "|| :" at the end of the fc-cache call?
by Thorsten Leemhuis 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

Hi all, the Fonts section on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets contains this: > Use this when your package installs new fonts. > > {{{ > %post > if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then > %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts > fi > %postun > if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then > if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then > %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts > fi > fi > }}} Is there a specific reason why there is no "|| :" at the end of "%{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts"? I think there should be one, as this happened to me during a F-7 -> rawhide update (that's still in progress while I'm writing this mail, so more errors might show up): > Updating : bitstream-vera-fonts ################### [ 383/1850] > /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1: failed to write cache > /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript: failed to write cache > error: %post(bitstream-vera-fonts-1.10-8.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 2 [...] > Updating : fontconfig ################### [ 416/1850] > /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1: failed to write cache > /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript: failed to write cache > /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1: failed to write cache > error: %post(fontconfig-2.4.2-5.fc8.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 3 [...] > Updating : dejavu-lgc-fonts ################### [ 548/1850] > /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript: failed to write cache > error: %post(dejavu-lgc-fonts-2.19-1.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 > Updating : liberation-fonts ################### [ 549/1850] > /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript: failed to write cache > error: %post(liberation-fonts-0.2-1.fc8.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 CU knurd

5 5

Packaging Draft LSB Initscripts
by Harald Hoyer 06 Sep '07

06 Sep '07

Open for comments/corrections/modifications... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript

5 6

kernel mod package howto?
by Neal Becker 31 Aug '07

31 Aug '07

I'm submitting blcr which builds a kernel mod. Where can I find info on packaging for kernel mods? Examples?

5 6

tex related packages names
by Patrice Dumas 31 Aug '07

31 Aug '07

Hello, I propose tex packages to be named tex-something instead of tetex-something I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release} -- Pat

5 10

Zope Public License
by Paul Howarth 29 Aug '07

29 Aug '07

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing lists two versions (1.0 and 2.0) of the Zope Public License in the "good licenses" list. Both entries in the table refer to http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL, which has contained the text of version 2.1 of the license for quite some time. Can ZPLv2.1 please be added to the good licenses list, as it's needed for python-zope-interface. Paul.

2 1

sendmail license
by Paul Howarth 29 Aug '07

29 Aug '07

The sendmail license (http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE) is not currently listed in the "Good licenses" list, nor is it listed on the FSF "list of licenses" page. However, sendmail *is* listed in the FSF directory of free software (http://directory.fsf.org/sendmail.html) Please can the sendmail license be added to the good licenses page? Paul.

1 0

Python Egg Guidelines
by Toshio Kuratomi 29 Aug '07

29 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello all, I've finished a first draft of guidelines for using python eggs. There's one open question -- whether we should be creating eggs for upstreams that do not create them by default. I think the answer to that is no except for one special case but others might disagree. The rest of it is pretty straightforward; made longer by the addition of copious examples. Take a look and give feedback. The Packaging Committee will vote on this on Tuesday (next week's packaging meeting.) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PythonEggs PS: We already have a couple of cases where we need to apply these guidelines * Review for parallel installable python-sqlalchemy0.3: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=257381 * Request for python-cherrypy-3.0 upgrade which needs a python-cherrypy2 compat package for TurboGears. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224683 * Request to add egginfo to docutils (which is a departure from upstream). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=256541 - -Toshio -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG1MfaX6yAic2E7kgRAmIlAJkBMOooviBZHGZhkg+Anh5kBQvDkACeIXLq poCNwcUzHDbE8DN8EHU+58g= =NZPE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

overview of all Package Guidelines or use CategoryPackageGuidelines
by Till Maas 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Hi, is there a page in the wiki that simply lists all existing guidelines for packages in Fedora? I guess not. Therefore I suggest to add all these guidelines to CategoryPackageGuidelines. I cannot do this myself, because I cannot change the regarding wiki pages. Regards, Till

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging August 2007