"Explicit requires" and "requiring base package"
by Ville Skyttä
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when
absolutely necessary. [...]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually, subpackages
other than -devel should also require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency.
I think these two guidelines or their wording are more or less in conflict
these days. Most -devel packages do not "absolutely necessarily" need an
explicit dependency on the base package because rpm automatically adds soname
dependencies from symlinks in -devel to the corresponding shared lib in the
main/lib package. Ditto, many cases of other non-devel subpackages get
automatic lib soname dependencies to the main/lib package.
If the intent is to still require explicit deps like in "requiring base
package" even though there are automatic ones that would usually work, just to
be sure or for other reasons (possibility of compilation options, patchwork
that affects some internal subpackages but not other -devel/lib package
consumers), I think "requiring base packages" and "explicit requires" should
be cross referenced noting that this is an exception and those explicit deps
are indeed wanted.
If not, IMO "requiring base package" should be softened so that it requires
adding those explicit deps if no automatic ones are present, or just removed
because that'd be redundant with "explicit requires" and the rest of the
general dependency guidelines.
14 years, 7 months
Processing Review Requests
by Shakthi Kannan
Hi,
I would like to know:
1. If there is a comprehensive contact list of Fedora Packagers who
are allowed to sponsor packages? Is the list available somewhere that
new joinees can use, and contact Fedora packagers? or is it always
that whenever a Sponsor looks into FE-NEEDSPONSOR review requests in
bugzilla, the package is reviewed?
2. Is there a queue of review requests that is maintained, say, for
example a review-request that has not been reviewed for a month,
should be given first priority or is there any criteria as such? or is
it left to the Packagers?
3. If there is a SIG, and exists a group of Packagers who can sponsor
a package within the SIG, how do they coordinate as to which packages
need to be reviewed first, or in what order?
Appreciate any inputs in this regard,
Thanks!
SK
--
Shakthi Kannan
http://www.shakthimaan.com
14 years, 7 months
rpm build problem
by ram s
hi,
i am creating rpm packaging.
i got the following problem
Processing files:troapplication-1.0.0-1
Processing files: troapplication-debuginfo-1.0.0-1
error: Could not open %files file
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILD/troapplication-1.0.0/debugfiles.list: No such file
or directory
RPM build errors:
Could not open %files file
/home/nco_user/rpmbuild/BUILD/NCOVMSOFTS-1.0.0/debugfiles.list: No such file
or directory
I created same package before and built it properly and create rpm biunary
and can able to install.
Any idea.
thank you.
14 years, 7 months
How to run own shell script from rpm spec
by ram s
Hi,
I am creating on example.sh in my source folder and tar it and put it in
/home/user/rpmbuild/SOURCES directory.
In that example.sh, I am creating one directory in my tmp folder.
But, when I run the spec file, it not execute the shell script and run the
command.
I am using %pre section to run that shell script.
My spec file is,
******************************************************************
Summary: This Package install example daemon application
Name: example
Version:1
Release:5
License: CC-GNU GPL version 2.0
Group: Applications/System
Source:example-1.tar.gz
BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
Requires: python = 2.2.3
Requires: gcc
Requires(post): /bin/sh
BuildRequires: libpcap
BuildRequires: gawk
BuildArch:x86_64
Packager:S.Jayaram
%description
This Package install CDaemon application
%prep
%setup -q
%build
%{__make}
%pre
sh example.sh
sh javacheck.sh
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_tmppath}
install -m755 example $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_tmppath}/example
%makeinstall
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
#%dir /home/nco_user/rpmbuild/SOURCES/example-1
%{_bindir}/*
%clean
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
***************************************************************
My script is,
#!/bin/sh
mkdir /home/nco_user/rpmbuild/tmp/CDaemon
I am not able to run the script and create the folder.
When I run rpmbuild , it run properly and create the binary.
But when I installed it shows following error,
[error]
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
sh: example.sh: No such file or directory
sh: javacheck.sh: No such file or directory
error: %pre(example-1-5.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127
error: install: %pre scriptlet failed (2), skipping example-1-5
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
what is my problem.
I put my shell scripts in /home/user/rpmbuild/SOURCES/example-1/ directory
and finally tar it.
where can i call my own custom shell scripts.
thank you.
14 years, 7 months
Packaging a game, need help with setgid security
by Ryan Rix
Hello group,
I have recently finished packaging the game IVAN (http://ivan.sf.net) for
Fedora 11:
Iter Vehemens ad Necum is a graphical roguelike game. It features advanced
bodypart and material handling, multi-colored lighting and, above all, deep
gameplay.
Like many roguelikes, it has a shared high score file and Bones files that
all users are meant to have their scores and final data written to. As a
result, the game is forced to run setgid games so that it has the rights to
write to /var/games/ivan/. While packaging this application, I got a lot of
help from some of the Fedora-KDE guys (hi Kevin, Ben) and they both
suggested I run this through Fedora Security SIG so that the game would
properly demote itself to non-setgid when it doesn't need to.
What is the proper channel to go about this? Should I just mail to the
security list? Should I put this package up for review beforehand/in the
meantime?
Thanks and Best,
Ryan Rix
--
Ryan Rix
(623)-826-0051
Fortune:
I'm DESPONDENT ... I hope there's something DEEP-FRIED under this
miniature DOMED STADIUM ...
http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://twitter.com/phrkonaleash
XMPP: phrkonaleash(a)gmail.com | MSN: phrkonaleash(a)yahoo.com
AIM: phrkonaleash | Yahoo: phrkonaleash
IRC: PhrkOnLsh(a)irc.freenode.net/#srcedit,#teensonlinux,#plugaz and
countless other FOSS channels.
14 years, 7 months
RPM packaging for fedora 10 problem
by ram s
Hello all,
sorry to ask questions again and again.
I am new to rpm packaging.
I am trying to create one RPM package for my daemon application in Fedora
10.
daemon application contains ,
1. daemon.c
2. daemon.h
3. list.c
4.list.h
5.makefile.
So , I am just tar the daemon application as "daemon.tar.gz".
I put this daemon.tar.gz in /home/user/rpmbuild/SOURCES directory.
I am creating spec filr and put it in /home/user/rpmbuild/SPECS directory.
Now, I am trying to create binary RPM for my application. I am in x86_64
architecture.
when I run *rpmbuild -bs daemon-1.spec* and then *rpmbuild -bb
daemon-1.spec*
only source rpm created. Binary RPM is not created.
How to cretae binary RPM for my application.
If my spec file is wrong, please correct me.
I create .rpmmacros in my home director (/home/user/).
MY spec file is,
[SPEC]
Summary: This Package install Daemon application
Name: daemon
Version:1
Release:1
License: GPL
Group: Applications/System
Source:daemon.tar.gz
BuildRoot: /home/nco_user/rpmbuild/tmp
BuildArch:noarch
Packager:S.J.Ram
%description
This Package install Daemon application
%prep
%setup -q
%build
make
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make install
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_tmppath}/daemon
[/SPEC]
please guide me to create binary rpm.
Do I need to change SPEC file?.
If any one already did RPM package for their C or java application, please
give me the example (with one tar.gz file)
thank you.
14 years, 7 months
AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering comments
by Ville Skyttä
A couple of comments to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFilt...
1) Usage
I suggest changing "MUST only be used with packages which meet the following
criteria:" to "MUST only be used with packages which meet one of the following
criteria:" as both can't be satisifed by any package.
2) Compatibility
A note/tip about older/other distro (e.g. EPEL) compatibility would be nice so
applying this stuff wouldn't require specfile forking or fragile
distro/version checks. For example wrapping stuff in %{?filter_setup: ...}
works (i.e. gets bypassed when not available), e.g. like:
%{?filter_setup:
%filter_provides_in /some/path
%filter_setup}
14 years, 7 months
Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
by Bill Nottingham
Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com) said:
> >> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
> >> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
> >> filesystem package.
> >
> > Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the
> > matter.
> >
> Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for
> packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d
OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft
Comments?
Bill
14 years, 7 months
Need access to a PPC machine to debug LLVM/pure self-test issues
by Michel Alexandre Salim
Hi,
I'm currently packaging pure, and there are some issues on several
architectures (Rawhide/x86_64 and ppc on any Fedora release). The
upstream developer is interested in getting the issues fixed, and
while I can help debug the x86_64 issues, PPC would really require
access to a PPC machine.
Does anyone have access to such a machine that they can provide an SSH
login for? There might be some rather heavy-duty compilation involved
at the beginning (experimenting with LLVM build options) but after
that it's a matter of building a small-ish package, pure, against it.
Kevin Fenzi gave me access several months ago, IIRC, but it has
expired by now (and anyway, it was for my public key, not the
developer's).
Upstream issue being tracked here;
http://code.google.com/p/pure-lang/issues/detail?id=13
Thanks,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
14 years, 7 months
