packaging December 2008

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

21 participants
17 discussions

Re: fontpackages template warnings
by Nicolas Mailhot 02 Jan '09

02 Jan '09

Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 16:37, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > > Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 15:29, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit : >> Hello, > > Hi, > > Thank you for adapting your packages and providing feedback! > >> I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some >> rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related. Specifically, >> I >> followed the /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec from >> fontpackages-devel that creates absolute symlinks between >> /etc/fonts/conf.d/$font.conf and >> /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/$font.conf >> rpmlint moans about the absolute symlink and wants a relative one. >> I >> don't really have an opinion about that and could not find any >> fedora >> policy on this one [1]. > > I didn't find a simple (for me and packagers) way to create relative > symlinks here. Individual packages are not supposed to know the values > of the directory macros since FPC asked for them in part to hide > future value changes from individual packagers. drat, should have read your link before commenting. I'm not sure how ok it is to add a dep to symlinks for fontpackages-devel. It looks harmless enough, but is this package even in all our spins? I suppose if I change the templates to use the symlinks command to avoid the rpmlint warning, I need to notify FPC at least (even if it's a minor change, it's still a guidelines change) -- Nicolas Mailhot

3 5

Problems accessing Koji website.
by Henrique Junior 26 Dec '08

26 Dec '08

Hello, everyone. I am submitting my first package and found some difficulty accessing Koji's website[1]. As specified in the "PackageMaintainers /Join"[2], I've runned "fedora-setup package", creating the file ~/fedora-browser-cert.p12. Importing it to Firefox [3] I went to the Koji' page and get a first warning that said that Koji's page doesn't have a trusted certificate (Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer); continue adding an exception, the page to check my ssl certificate returned the following error: (Error code: ssl_error_revoked_cert_alert). Am I doing something wrong? Excuse me for the inconvenience. Happy new year to all. [1] - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/login [2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join [3] - http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3248/capturadetelakj3.png -- Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior http://www.lonelyspooky.com ------------------------------------------------------------- "In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?!"

1 0

Missing links in Packaging:Debuginfo
by Ville Skyttä 25 Dec '08

25 Dec '08

The "StackTraces" words in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo are no longer linked to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StackTraces

2 1

Usage of {_libdir} or {_lib} in noarch packages
by Karsten Hopp 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

I've run a x86_64 mass rebuild of all our Fedora packages and found several noarch packages which erronously use {_libdir} or {_lib} in their spec files. rpmdiff shows this output: ./firstaidkit-0.2.2-5.fc11.noarch.rpm removed /usr/lib/firstaidkit removed /usr/lib/firstaidkit/plugins added /usr/lib64/firstaidkit added /usr/lib64/firstaidkit/plugins As noarch packages can be built on any machine/architecture in koji, we'd end up with lib64 directories on 32bit archs Here is the list of offending packages I've found: Package Owner ------------------------ ntfs-config laxathom firstaidkit msivak terminus-font ndim gdeskcal pfj libopensync-plugin-synce awjb cohoba tjikkun gnome-schedule farnold common-lisp-controller green gcstar tian revisor-cli jsteffan jruby konradm Can we make it a policy to not use _libdir or _lib in noarch packages, please ? Karsten

9 13

Font package splitting clarification
by Nicolas Mailhot 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

[Drat. I *knew* I had forgotten to spam one list] Hi all, Since the discussion on font package splitting rules seems to be exhausted, and since no one stepped up with an obviously better proposal than mine, I've queued the following FPC-side: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_… I've tried to integrate all the exceptions that were brought up during the discussion and that were consensual, and to separate the rules from their rationale (so packagers in a hurry only need to read the first part). I've ended up with four simple master rules that should not be open to interpretation. Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Font package naming guidelines
by Nicolas Mailhot 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

Hi, Since there has been no more remarks on the clarified font package naming rules discussed as part of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes_(2008-1… I've queued the following for approval FPC-side: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2008-12-… Except for the comps changes which seem not baked yet, that concludes the fonts-related guidelines changes and clarifications that were proposed for F11. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Ownership of /usr/share/gnome/help
by Jason L Tibbitts III 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Can someone tell me what package should own /usr/share/gnome/help, or if individual packages placing files there should own it? The latter seems to be the case, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Is there any reason why /usr/share/gnome/help shouldn't just be owned by filesystem? It already owns /usr/share/gnome. Actually, it seems that several other packages own /usr/share/gnome too, which probably begs for some bugs to be filed. - J<

4 11

"ratify"
by Andrew Overholt 12 Dec '08

12 Dec '08

Hi, I couldn't find the meeting minutes for the most recent meeting but did find that my proposed changes to the Eclipse plugin packaging guidelines have the "ratify" status meaning they need to be run by FESCo. Does this mean I need to be present during a FESCo meeting? If they're passed by FESCo, will the changes be applied or do I need to do something? Thanks, Andrew

3 3

guidelines for dbus services
by Matthias Clasen 12 Dec '08

12 Dec '08

In the light of the recent dbus debacle, I think it would be very good to add a section about dbus services to the packaging guidelines. As we have painfully learned, an incorrect policy file for a third-party service can render the entire system bus unusable, or open it up to everybody, so it is important that packagers pay attention to the dbus policy files in their packages. I don't have a concrete proposal right now, but Colin made a good start at writing up some best practices here: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2008-December/010717.html Matthias

2 1

Including a patched version of an upstream library -- advice?
by Mary Ellen Foster 12 Dec '08

12 Dec '08

So I decided to try upping my own review karma by trying to review some outstanding Java packages. Unfortunately, I seem to have chosen one with an "interesting" issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013 The package in question is "findbugs-bcel": an alternative version of the bcel library (already in Fedora), including a fairly large patch from the developers of the "findbugs" package. There seems to be no hope of getting this patch into upstream bcel (e.g., https://mailman.cs.umd.edu/pipermail/findbugs-discuss/2007-April/001880.html) There was a short discussion on this on fedora-devel-list last year: http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-September/msg00865.html What's the official policy here? I guess I should try to find a more straightforward package for my first review ... MEF -- Mary Ellen Foster -- http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/ Informatik 6: Robotics and Embedded Systems, Technische Universität München and ICCS, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging December 2008