packaging September 2008

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

29 participants
19 discussions

Re: rakarrack - alternative desktop categories
by Development discussions related to Fedora 12 Oct '08

12 Oct '08

Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > 0.2.x is now in Planet CCRMA thanks to Arnaud from IRCAM. Great if you > can/want to migrate it to Fedora! I did submit a package review that I think meets the Fedora guidelines: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455953 > I would appreciate it if you could > keep the extra categories in the desktop file, they are used to classify > audio apps in an extra menu I added to Planet CCRMA (and rakarrack would > drop out of it if they were ommited). The question you ask is a good one, and I understand where you are coming from: {ccrma .spec} ===== # desktop file categories BASE="X-Fedora Application AudioVideo" XTRA="X-Digital_Processing X-Jack" %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \ --dir %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ `for c in ${BASE} ${XTRA} ; do echo "--add-category $c " ; done` \ %{SOURCE1} ===== As I understand it, a Fedora package can use only the categories present in the freedesktop.org spec: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.desktop_file_creation http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html Can a package use it's own categories, or must they meet the standards ? If there will be many audio apps {aka ccrma} packages, it would be best to have them grouped in the same menu; the AudioVideo menu on my machine is already overflowing more than a screenful, so I think it would be good if these audio {only} apps get their own menu ? DaveT.

2 3

Question about how libgcj-devel requires zlib
by Bruno Wolff III 01 Oct '08

01 Oct '08

While playing with custom repos I noticed that libgcj-devel requires a file from zlib-devel that isn't explicitly provided. In a mixed x86_86 / i386 environmentment this requires looking at the file lists to see that libgcj-devel-4.3.2-4.i386 needs zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386 and that zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.x86_64 isn't good enough. I am not sure if this is actually a bug though and if so, which package is at fault. I was hoping to get some guidance here on whether or not this is something I should bugzilla.

9 21

Request : removal of gtk-sharp
by Paul F. Johnson 28 Sep '08

28 Sep '08

Hi, From what I've discovered, gtk-sharp has been fully depricated by gtk-sharp2 now and so as maintainer of this package for fedora, can I ask that it is retired from rawhide and f9? Thanks Paul -- Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!

2 1

Please do not redefine %_bindir
by Michael A. Peters 28 Sep '08

28 Sep '08

Building the fedora 9 cpio package for a distribution that puts install-info into /usr/bin (where it probably belongs - the info dir is in /usr/share so /usr is going to be mounted when you run it, and users can make there own info dir so it probably shouldn't be a /sbin or /usr/sbin binary, but anyway ...) So - to port the rpm I needed to change the references to /sbin/install-info to %{_bindir}/install-info After building, it would not install because - yup, the fedora spec file redefines %_bindir at the top of the spec file to /bin Don't do that. There should be a packaging guideline against that. It impacts more than just the %configure macro and the %files section, which I assume is why it was done. It impacts anything else that uses %{_binder} just add --bindir=/bin to the end of the %configure line and specify /bin/ in %files and don't redefine the filesystem path macros. Thank you.

3 2

Broken URL in review process page
by Debarshi Ray 26 Sep '08

26 Sep '08

The review process page on the Fedora wiki [1] provides this link to check if a person is already sponsored and part of the packager group: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/dump/?groupname=packager However it did not work for me today and I found this https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager?search=* to work. Thanks, Debarshi [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

1 0

Next FPC?
by Richard W.M. Jones 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

I notice that FPC hasn't met for a while. I bumped up the priority of the MinGW packaging draft on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo because I think it'd be good to now have a technical discussion about the draft guidelines which we substantially tidied up last weekend: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v

2 1

%doc and %attr problems
by François Kooman 22 Sep '08

22 Sep '08

Hi, I'm trying to package globalplatform and gpshell but have some problems now with packaging some of the example scripts included. They are chmodded 755 instead of the wanted 644 so I tried to use this in the spec file: %attr(0644,root,root)%doc README COPYING.LESSER *.txt But this will result in the /usr/share/doc/gpshell-1.4.2/ also being chmodded 644 which will make rpmlint (correctly) complain: gpshell.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/gpshell-1.4.2 0644 I tried using: %doc %attr(0644,root,root)%doc README LICENSE.LESSER *.txt but that doesn't seem to help much. I've already submitted this issue upstream and the maintainer said that he'll fix it for the next release in a few months... How can I deal with it best for now? Regards, François

3 2

OpenSuse / Fedora Packaging Compatibility?
by Ken Sedgwick 21 Sep '08

21 Sep '08

Greetings, The ACE+TAO dev team currently has two different spec files for generating RPMs. One has been oriented towards Fedora/Redhat build environments and the other is used in the OpenSuse build environment. The temptation is to make them the same (they are pretty similar). Are there any unreconcilable differences between OpenSuse packaging and Fedora Packaging? More importantly, are there any examples of packages which currently use the same spec file (perhaps with platform conditional blocks) for both distributions? We'd sure love to use them as an example ... Many thanks in advance! Ken -- Ken Sedgwick Bonsai Software, Inc. http://www.bonsai.com/ken/ (510) 610-4162 ken+5a4(a)bonsai.com Public Key: http://www.bonsai.com/ken/ken.asc GPG Fingerprint: 851E 3B07 E586 0843 9434 5CC7 4033 3B9B 3F3F 9640

5 4

Use of Internal Libraries
by Nigel Jones 20 Sep '08

20 Sep '08

Hey guys, So I know we have http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_li… which I think is pretty good, easy to understand and fairly simple. The problem I think is that some upstream's still want to ship internal, modified libraries. Prime examples are mono packages, I can think of Banshee, Cowbell and f-spot from personal experience. It's got to point where another upstream is giving me a little bit of hard time over it all, I even had a Debian developer agree with our guidelines (they have the same). Upstream says "it's a guideline not a rule". _MY_ question is, what can we (Fedora) do to make it clear that we have clear cut rules for why we don't want packages providing internal libraries? - NJ -- Nigel Jones <dev(a)nigelj.com>

6 20

Group tag in spec files
by Tim Jackson 19 Sep '08

19 Sep '08

Just a thought: perhaps the Packaging Guidelines should have a comment about formulating the "Group" tag in spec files? If nothing else they could tell you to go and read /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS, but a bit of advice would probably be welcome there, especially for new contributors. Currently it only has one passing reference to the Group tag (in relation to documentation-only packages). Thanks Tim

6 7

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging September 2008