Creating a mailinglist for discussions about Fedora and openSUSE package guidelines merging
by Hans de Goede
Hi,
As you know I've been in contact with some people from openSUSE, talking about
merging our package guidelines.
This has lead to some discussion about rpm shortcomings which is now being
discussed at rpm-maint(a)rpm.org. But another part of this discussion is merging
our guidelines in general, esp. those which are not workaround for the rpm
shortcomings.
The openSUSE people would like to create a foo(a)opensuse.org mailinglist hosting
this discussion. Are there any objections to such a list being hosted
@opensuse.org?
Regards,
Hans
15 years, 10 months
Python Virtual Provides
by Toshio Kuratomi
I've added Python Virtual Provides to the list of draft guidelines.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python
There are two parts:
1) introduce virtual provides for python eggs. Copying from the way we
do rubygems, this would be:
Provides: pythonegg(SQLAlchemy) = %{version}
Requires: pythonegg(SQLAlchemy) >= 0.3.11
2) introduce virtualprovides for normal python modules:
Provides: python(sqlalchemy) = %{version}
Requires: python(sqlalchemy)
The motivation for this is that David Malcolm (dmalcolm) wrote a proof
of concept script to show how easy it would be to extract egg dependency
information as part of the rpm build process.
Since this will be a far reaching change, should it be discussed on
fedora-devel-list first or whether we want to do both parts?
-Toshio
15 years, 10 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] New package help
by Seth Vidal
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> writes:
>
> PD> It would indeed be very nice to have ROOT in fedora. I'd be happy
> PD> to review it.
>
> It should be noted that "root" is a rather ambiguous package name; I
> hope that there's some reasonable name that can be used.
You'd think that, alas, this is not to be so. :(
I had to deal with root for years. It likes to run a daemon named 'rootd'.
There's nothing that makes a sysadmin cringe up like a process named 'rootd'
-sv
15 years, 10 months
New package help
by Juan Carlos Cornejo
Hello all,
I am preparing a package that I will submit for review, and hopefully later,
for inclusion in Fedora. However, I have run into some issues which I
cannot seem to resolve myself. I write to the list, hoping that some of you
may be able to help me resolve the issues.
First, let me tell you a little bit about the program, as its important to
the issues on hand.
The program is called ROOT, it is a whole analysis framework developed by
CERN that is currently in use in most high energy to medium energy physics
laboratories, and released under the LGPv2+. However, it is written general
enough that it can be applied to other fields that require a complex
analysis framework. Additionally, ROOT makes use of an internal C/C++
Interpreter, which allows for on the fly scripting of C/C++ code.
So essentially, ROOT is both an analysis package, and a development package,
which really leads into the next problems.
1) the C/C++ interpreter called CINT, produces, as output, DLL files. I
don't know why, but this is their solution to dynamic libraries that will be
shared across all supported OS's. They support Linux and many Unices, as
well as Mac OS X and Windows. These DLL files are compiled by the code, so
we have the source code available, though rpmlint seems to give a warning
about them. And essentially, I don't know what to make of it.
Here is a sample error: root-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/root/cint/include/stdcxxfunc.dll
2) Because rpmlint used to complain about header files being in a non devel
package, I moved all header files to the devel package. But the devel
_MUST_ be installed along with the main package, CINT requires them to be
there. So if I don't create a devel package, I get hundreds of warnings for
the header files. If I do create a devel package, and require this devel
package from the core files, I get an error out of rpmlint.
3) This one is not really an I issue I guess, but I figured I might as well
mention it now. ROOT ships with MS TrueType fonts, for some reason. So I
just removed them from the package, as I have not had any problems without
them on Fedora. And I use root extensively. Also, I've removed some
windows DLL's that were included in the package. Also not needed for a
Fedora release. I am hoping that this will not be a problem, having a tar
archive that is slightly different than the upstream one.
Thank you all for your advanced help. I really hope this program can be
made fit to include in the distribution.
--Juan Carlos Cornejo
15 years, 10 months
Haskell packages
by Jason L Tibbitts III
Someone has bombed the package review queue with a bunch of GHC
(Haskell) packages. Actually, they're not really actual packages,
just spec files and patches that he wants us to assemble. Hopefully
we can get that worked out, but the larger issue of Haskell packaging
remains.
I recalled that we briefly considered Haskell packaging after the last
fudcon, but nothing came of it. Should we block Haskell packages like
we blocked Java (and various language packages before it)? Do we have
anyone that's still interested in developing Haskell guidelines?
I have essentially no knowledge of Haskell, so it should be obvious
that I'm not the best person to do this. However, all of the
submissions were generated mechanically so I suspect that at least a
portion of them could just be reviewed mechanically. I made a few
comments to one of the tickets,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=451413, and
hopefully the submissions will get cleaned up into a reviewable state.
But we still need to cecide whether or not we want to block them until
guidelines are ready.
- J<
15 years, 10 months
Missing FPC meeting
by Ralf Corsepius
Hi,
I am on vacation next week and will likely not have access to "the net"
at all. Thus, I will also likely not be able to attend next week's FPC
meeting.
Ralf
15 years, 10 months
New name for dhcp-3.0.5-42.fc7.src.rpm
by artem rus
Hi ! I slightly change dhcp-3.0.5-42.fc7.src.rpm and generate from it dhcp
and related binary packages. I want what my packages was installed in system
insted of original, but I don't know what names give to my new packages. Now
i just change subversion from 42 to 99, but i am afraid, what my packages
will be overwriten in future updates. I can change name to dhcp-custom...
for example, but this can broke dependency. So, I have question. How I can
safely install my own package what overrides system package ?
15 years, 10 months
Unifying Fedora and openSuse packaging guidelines, rpmmacros and scriplets
by Hans de Goede
Hi,
As a result fo some discussion on the fdo distributions list, I've been having
some very interesting discussions with people from Suse, currently one of them
(Stanislav Brabec) is preparing a wiki document describing the differences, and
shared problems we have like gtk-update-icon-cache, etc.
We would really like to continue our discussions in the open and Stanislav had
discussed this with the rpm.org people, and as they are interested in large
parts of this discussion they have suggesting to join rpm-maint(a)lists.rpm.org.
This is not a high traffic list (about 50 mails/month), and most people there
would be interested in the discussion anyway.
So I would like to invite anyone interested to subscribe to rpm-maint(a)lists.rpm.org
Stanislav will send a mail there to start the discussion when he has some wiki
pages which describe the current differences and shared problems.
Thanks & Regards,
Hans
15 years, 10 months
