packaging April 2009

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

32 participants
21 discussions

[Draft] The use of alternatives
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 25 May '09

25 May '09

Hi. The UsingAlternatives draft[1] should now be ready for voting at the next meeting. I've just made some finishing touches. I'd like to include it in the agenda for the next FPC meeting. Regards, R. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

3 4

ruby gem and library in C and debuginfo
by Dan Horák 01 May '09

01 May '09

Hi, I am doing a review for a ruby gem package that includes a library written in C (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497640) and there are problems with proper generation of the debuginfo package. It cannot find the source files, because the paths in the debugsources.list contains the "ext/<libname>" part twice and that's wrong. + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id /home/dan/rpmbuild/BUILD/rubygem-RedCloth-4.1.9 extracting debug info from /home/dan/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-RedCloth-4.1.9-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/redcloth_scan.so cpio: rubygem-RedCloth-4.1.9/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/RedCloth-4.1.9/ext/redcloth_scan/ext/redcloth_scan/redcloth_attributes.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: rubygem-RedCloth-4.1.9/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/RedCloth-4.1.9/ext/redcloth_scan/ext/redcloth_scan/redcloth_attributes.c.rl: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: rubygem-RedCloth-4.1.9/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/RedCloth-4.1.9/ext/redcloth_scan/ext/redcloth_scan/redcloth_inline.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: rubygem-RedCloth-4.1.9/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/RedCloth-4.1.9/ext/redcloth_scan/ext/redcloth_scan/redcloth_inline.c.rl: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: rubygem-RedCloth-4.1.9/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/RedCloth-4.1.9/ext/redcloth_scan/ext/redcloth_scan/redcloth_scan.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: rubygem-RedCloth-4.1.9/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/RedCloth-4.1.9/ext/redcloth_scan/ext/redcloth_scan/redcloth_scan.c.rl: Cannot stat: No such file or directory Dan

2 1

Question about triggers
by Alan Evans 29 Apr '09

29 Apr '09

Can triggers be assigned to arbitrary capabilities or only by actual packages? All the docs I have read give me the impression that triggers are only triggered by packages and not arbitrary capabilities. Regards, -Alan

2 1

FPC meeting time proposal
by Jason L Tibbitts III 29 Apr '09

29 Apr '09

I wasn't sure if I should just directly mail this to the FPC members, but I figured this should work as well. At the last meeting those present discussed moving the meeting to better accommodate folks who have a tough time making it now. My understanding is that we can go at most two hours earlier because that puts the meeting at 8AM US Pacific time. We have to move at least one hour earlier to accommodate our friends in CET/CEST. The proposal discussed at the meeting is to move to Wednesdays at 15:00UTC. This would give us a two hour block and still give us (me) sufficient time before the FESCo meeting to get a report in. Unfortunately Toshio realized this morning that he would have to miss the first 30 minutes of that meeting due to another commitment. Thus I propose 15:30UTC on Wednesdays, which still gives us 90 minutes of channel time. I'd like to see a reply from each of the committee members indicating whether this works or not. Otherwise I'll mail you personally. - J<

7 12

Allowing only one package to provide a virtual capability
by Alan Evans 29 Apr '09

29 Apr '09

I am sorry if this is the wrong place but it seems that the rpm-list does not exist any more and this list looks to be the best fit otherwise. I am trying to create a few packages that all provide a virtual capability but would like to allow only one of these packages to be installed at a time. Has to be compatible with RPM 4.2 and greater. (RHEL4 and RHEL5) <snip> Name: package-a Provides: package-a config(package) </snip> <snip> Name: package-b Provides: package-b config(package) </snip> <snip> Name: package-c Provides: package-c config(package) </snip> I could obviously add Conflicts: package-b package-c to package package-a and so on, but every time I add a new package-X I have to manually go through my spec files and update the Conflicts tags. Again I suppose I could script the update but it seems less elegant. I tried: <snip> Name: package-a Provides: package-a config(package) Conflicts: config(package) </snip> But the result is: config(package) conflicts with package-a-1.1-1.svn20090428.noarch I thought I saw something like this in another list, will post link if I can find it. Where the goal was to only allow one package that provides a particular virtual capability. Anyone know how to accomplish this or if this is the wrong list can you direct me to a better resource? Regards, -Alan

3 2

Re: Agenda for the 2009-04-28 Packaging Committee meeting
by Ralf Corsepius 29 Apr '09

29 Apr '09

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > The Packaging Committee will meet Tuesday, 2009-04-14 at 17:00UTC in > the #fedora-meeting channel on chat.freenode.net. 17:00 UTC will likely not work for me. Therefore, votes and comments interspersed below > FPC works from the agenda at > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo; here are some > things which should be brought up for discussion at the next meeting: > > GConf scriptlets - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf 0 ... this proposal needs further discussion. It's way too complex and way too intrusive to be able to comment on in a short emails. > Globus - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Globus In my understanding, the globus package set is an arbitrary set of packages like many 1000 others in Fedora and therefore doesn't need specialized rules in the FPG. => My vote: -1 > Compiler Flags - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Compiler_Flags_(draft) I would presume this kind of "wisdom" to be "elementary and basic knowledge", people without should not package packages for Fedora. Apart of this, this proposal is misleading ("should honor", IMO "must honor"), partially wrong (make CFLAGS=... is wrong for modern autotools based packages), ... I don't find this proposal helpful. => My vote: -1 Ralf

3 3

about compiler flags
by Orcan Ogetbil 29 Apr '09

29 Apr '09

I have 2 questions. The first one is brought to my attention by a first time reviewer and he has got an interesting point. The guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags say: "Adding to and overriding or filtering parts of these flags is permitted if there's a good reason to do so; the rationale for doing so should be reviewed and documented in the specfile especially in the override and filter cases." As you probably know that some packages add their own compiler flags on top of what we specified as %optflags. Until now, I did not do anything about these flags unless they override our %optflags. Now, having a second thought, I realized that the above statement can be interpreted in two ways: 1- The extra flags are added by the packager: This is the way I used to interpret the guideline, and I always document if I add additional flags on top of %{optflags} 2- The extra flags are added by the build script of upstream: Here is the question: Do we need to document such cases in the specfile? I know that we have hundreds (maybe thousands) of packages which don't document this case in the specfile. Are such packages violating the above guideline? Second question: From the same link above: "Compilers used to build packages should honor the applicable compiler flags set in the system rpm configuration." Does this apply to the stage where the compiler is doing the linking, i.e: "gcc -shared -lthis -lthat..."? Do we need to honor %optflags in this stage too? Again, I know many packages that don't pass %optflags to the compiler during the linking. Do these pakcages violate the guideline? Orcan

5 8

New Draft Packaging Guideline - Fixing Gconf schema registration
by Shawn Starr 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

Hello everyone, I have created a draft guideline using OpenSuSE's existing macros.gconf2 script for Fedora. You can find this at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf I have done an initial test with the .spec file mentioned as an example in this draft. Seems to work fine. Since this the first iteration, I would like people to comment so we can get this finalized for Fedora 12 and rejoice in speedy installs and yum updates. Thanks! -- Shawn Starr Software Developer, Open Source Grid Development Center (OSGDC) Platform Computing 3760 14th Avenue Markham, ON L3R3T7 direct: 905.948.4229 http://www.platform.com

3 3

Packaging guideline draft for globus toolkit
by Toshio Kuratomi 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

Mattias Ellert has proposed guidelines for packaging things from the Globus toolkit. It's a long document so I figured I'd give people a heads up so you don't come to the Meeting expecting to read it all there ;-) I've added a few small comments to the talk page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:PackagingDrafts/Globus Since I'm writing this, I'll add them here as well: * Could ./globus-spec.pl be put into a package? * Obtaining sources should also include copying over the the license file Mattias, let me know if it's better for you to have discussion on fedora-packaging list or on the talk page. -Toshio

1 0

Sysreport is still in rawhide - why?
by Jussi Lehtola 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

Hi, why is sysreport still available in rawhide? # yum --enablerepo=rawhide list sysreport Loaded plugins: downloadonly, refresh-packagekit Available Packages sysreport.noarch 1.4.4-3 rawhide # yum install sysreport Loaded plugins: downloadonly, refresh-packagekit Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments Package sysreport is obsoleted by sos, trying to install sos-1.8-9.fc10.noarch instead Package sos-1.8-9.fc10.noarch already installed and latest version Nothing to do -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging April 2009