packaging March 2009

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

36 participants
26 discussions

Packaging guidelines for rubygems
by Jeroen van Meeuwen 09 Mar '09

09 Mar '09

Hi, I find patching rubygems (for CVEs) a pain in the ass because of the packaging guideline requirement to have the rubygem package's Source0 be the actual gem. I'd much rather work from tarballs. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip

3 4

Inactive mantainers?
by Luca Foppiano 08 Mar '09

08 Mar '09

Hi guys, I want to know which is the status of this two tickets: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477938 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483380 I tried to comment those tickets, mail to maintainers but I got just a /dev/null...What I have to do? Luca -- Today is Boomtime, the 67th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3175 Good day for overcoming obstacles. Try a steeplechase.

2 4

Update request for /wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
by Michael Schwendt 07 Mar '09

07 Mar '09

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories needs an update (it's read-only). The section about "Inaccessible Directories" applies only to RPM < 4.4.2.3 according to information on fedora-devel-list, and that means Fedora < 9 if the information is correct. At least since Fedora 10, RPM sets a sane default umask, so unowned directories are created with mode 0755.

2 4

Wiki cleanup TODO
by Susan Lauber 05 Mar '09

05 Mar '09

Greetings, Much progress has been made on packaging related pages with regards to the wiki cleanup. This involves better use of categories, archiving old pages, and renaming pages for better search results. The detailed task list is at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_tasks_for_Packaging_Guide_and_related_m… I have three TODO items that I would appreciate some help with. 1. Spread the word to use the new naming and categories. 2. Let me know if there are any major changes that need to be done (so I don't repeat the mistakes with future page changes) 3. Look over the list of renaming changes for the protected Packaging pages. I finished up adding categories last night and am a bit cross eyed looking at it so general proofreading would also be helpful. This is in with wikirename.git repo and named Packaging.psv http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/wikirename.git?p=wikirename.git;a=blob_plai… Here's the high level structure that Toshio and put together last night: *Category:Packaging (containing mostly subcategories and few if any pages) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaging Inside Packaging you can find (among others): Category:Package Maintainers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers Category:Packages Category:Packaging SIGs Category:Packaging best practices (this one replaces an old guidelines and policy category) Category:Packaging committee https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaging_committee Inside Packaging committee you can find: Category:Packaging guidelines - holding the Packaging: namespace pages Category:Packaging guidelines drafts - holding the drafts (in the Main: namespace) in progress and a sub category of archived drafts Category:Packaging meeting logs - Meeting logs which will be in the Meeting: namespace Category:Packaging meeting minutes - Meeting minutes which will be in the Meeting: namespace I have already renamed the Package Maintainers pages. Any that I missed are probably recent additions but I will keep looking and assist anyone who has questions. I have renamed most of the Packaging guidelines drafts. The rest will be archived or renamed within the next week. Feel free to take care of your own pages. We are still hoping to get the scripts worked out so that the pages in Packaging: can be changed by wikibot. [Failing that, I am willing to do it manually if given access or someone already with access will need to manually make the changes.] Thanks, Susan -- Susan Lauber, (RHCX, RHCA, RHCSS) Lauber System Solutions, Inc. http://www.laubersolutions.com gpg: 15AC F794 A3D9 64D1 D9CE 4C26 EFC3 11C2 BFA1 0974

1 0

Dual licensing question...
by Ray Van Dolson 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

This is kind of a two part question. I have a package up for review[1] that, per the author, is dual licensed GPL and Artistic. Only GPL is accepted in Fedora. Do I specify my License as just GPLv2+ or do I indicate it's dual licensed even though Artistic is not allowed in Fedora? Also, there was a bit of confusion on the licensing status of this particular package. The PKG-INFO file indicates "Artistic" as the license, but also lists GPL -- I think this is just a side effect of one of the two licenses needing to be listed as "primary" on the pypi page[2]. Note the License field there and then the Categories field. I was able to contact the author, and he has indicated to me via email that this package should indeed be dual licensed under GPL and Artistic. This leads me to wonder a couple of things: - Is the PKG-INFO as indicated above sufficient to demonstrate the dual licensed nature of this package? - If it's not, would including the email from the author as part of the documentation be adequate? - Failing that, is the only way to get the author to release a new version of the package including license information and/or updatin the pypi entry? Guidance appreciated! Ray [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488407#c4 [2]: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/text_table/0.02

2 1

Call for the owner of %_datadir/gnome-background-properties
by Mamoru Tasaka 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Hello, all: I am now trying to review on bug 483498, then I got a question. Currently: ----------------------------------------------------------------- # repoquery --repoid=koji-11 --whatprovides '/usr/share/gnome-background-properties/*' | sort | uniq desktop-backgrounds-basic-0:9.0.0-7.noarch desktop-backgrounds-waves-0:9.0.0-7.noarch fedorainfinity-backgrounds-0:0.0.5-2.fc11.noarch gears-backgrounds-0:0.0.1-3.fc11.noarch gnome-backgrounds-0:2.24.0-4.fc11.noarch invinxble-backgrounds-0:0.0.1-3.fc11.noarch neon-backgrounds-0:0.0.1-3.fc11.noarch solar-backgrounds-0:0.92.0-2.fc11.noarch solar-backgrounds-extras-0:0.92.0-2.fc11.noarch themes-backgrounds-gnome-0:0.5.1-2.fc11.noarch # repoquery --repoid=koji-11 --whatprovides '/usr/share/gnome-background-properties' | sort | uniq desktop-backgrounds-basic-0:9.0.0-7.noarch fedorainfinity-backgrounds-0:0.0.5-2.fc11.noarch gears-backgrounds-0:0.0.1-3.fc11.noarch gnome-backgrounds-0:2.24.0-4.fc11.noarch invinxble-backgrounds-0:0.0.1-3.fc11.noarch neon-backgrounds-0:0.0.1-3.fc11.noarch solar-backgrounds-0:0.92.0-2.fc11.noarch ------------------------------------------------------------------- My question is: which package should own %_datadir/gnome-background-properties? - As the name of this directory shows something related to GNOME, maybe one component of GNOME should own this directory. However in that case forcing these packages to have "Requires" for the GNOME component due to this ownership issue seems redundant. - Or maybe filesystem (even if "gnome" appears on this directory name)? Any comments appreciated. Regards, Mamoru

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging March 2009