Suggested updated Java guidelines
by Alexander Boström
Hi,
I submitted a review for java-gnome and working on that made me think
the Java guidelines needs work, so here's a suggested update:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Abo/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate
=== Changes ===
Removed some occurances of a Unicode control character that didn't seem
to belong there.
Fixed formatting of the text under "Jar file naming".
Hopefully clarified the text under "Directory structure".
Changed some occuranced of "<code>%{_xxx</code>}" into
"<code>%{_xxx}</code>".
Changed -javadoc Group tag from "Development Documentation" to
"Documentation".
Mostly rewrote the section on JNI packaging. (See wiki.)
Removed this text:
The <code>%{_jnidir</code>} rpm macro defines the main JNI jar
repository. Like <code>%{_javadir</code>} it is declined in
<code>-ext</code> and <code>-x.y.z</code> variants. It follows
exactly the same rules as the <code>%{_javadir</code>}-derived
tree structure, except that it hosts JAR files that use JNI.
<code>%{_jnidir</code>} usually expands into
<code>/usr/lib/java</code>.
It seems to belong to the "The plan is to eventually..." part, but I
don't really understand it. Explain and I'll add something back. :)
Partially rewrote the section on prebuilt binaries and the suggested %
prep section. (See wiki.)
/abo
13 years, 6 months
RPM Group vs. Sugar
by Susi Lehtola
Hi,
the Sugar activity guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SugarActivityGuidelines#Sample_SPEC
instruct using Sugar/Activities as the RPM Group. Is using non-standard
RPM groups in Fedora really allowed? The Creating Package HOWTO suggests
that it is not, although AFAIK no guideline actually states anything
about it.
Of course, RPM groups are not very meaningful anymore as comps are
used...
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org
13 years, 8 months
Placement of %doc
by Remi Collet
Hi,
I'm searching info about %doc placement.
Most of %doc files (from source tree) goes under
/usr/share/doc/<package_name>-<version>
For the pear package, the installer copy doc files to
%{pear_docdir} = /usr/share/pear/doc/<extension_name>
So two solutions
1/ It's ok to keep this file here and use
%doc %{pear_docdir}/foo
2/ It's not ok, we MUST move them to /usr/share/doc ?
Actually, most pear package apply 2
I'm asking this because a new package under review apply 1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551724
And an (old) bug is open against php-pear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468255
But I don't find any usefull information in Guidelines.
Regards.
P.S. please also note that, because of 2 being applied on most packages,
the result of "pear list-files foo" is not correct
13 years, 8 months
Usage of /var/db
by Christian Krause
Hello,
During a review the following question came up:
Would it be OK if a package creates
/var/db/<pkgname>
for various kind of reasons (in this case a daemon would serve audio
files the user puts there)?
In Fedora only the nscd uses this directory:
/var/db/Makefile
/var/db/nscd/*
The FHS doesn't contain any specific guidelines about the usage of
/var/db/ and a quick web search revealed that on a couple of systems
some daemons use /var/db like this
/var/db/mysql
/var/db/openldap
etc.
1. Would it be acceptable in Fedora as well that a package creates
/var/db/<pkgname> ?
2. Would it make sense in this specific case, where a streaming server
would serve the audio files from this directory (per default)?
Personally I think that a collection of audio files should not be
considered a database and so it shouldn't be there. Since usually the
user has his audio collection in his home directory, I would just
configure the daemon that way, that the user has to specifically
configure the directory where the files reside the server should stream...
Thanks & Best regards,
Christian
13 years, 8 months
Writeup of approved packaging guidelines
by Susi Lehtola
Hi,
is there anything I can do to help the writeup of "my" guidelines for 5
months? For instance, new MPI packages are turning up with the packagers
being blissfully unaware that policies exist for these sort of things.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org
13 years, 8 months
Packaging Gnac (An audio converter for GNOME)
by Taylon
Hello guys,
I'm packaging Gnac, it's my first package and I have the following
doubt:
Gnac is an audio converter, it can convert a lot of audio files and some
of these types aren't directly supported by Fedora. On the .desktop
file, it register some of these non supported types.
Michael Schwendt (he did the package review), find better if an
application didn't register for MIME types it doesn't support, but some
other applications like audio players does that.
What I should to do in this case?
The bugzilla link is:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555018
Blog - http://www.focolive.org
13 years, 8 months
Short intro
by Maxim Burgerhout
Hi,
My name is Maxim Burgerhout and I'd like to start contributing to
Fedora development by maintaining a couple of packages. I work as a
sysadmin / Linux consultant for my daytime job. Over the last couple
of years, I have mainly worked with Red Hat boxes. During several
training sessions I had at Red Hat over the past few years, I learned
to create RPM's (amongst other things, of course) and I maintain a
good number of them for internal use. Those are admittedly not build
by the Fedora Guidelines, but I did my best to follow them correctly.
I have created a couple of review requests already (linked below). I
have packaged a couple of programs to get Yubikey support into Fedora.
Yubikeys are fairly low-tech hardware tokens that generate one-time
passwords. There's a couple of programs in Fedora to deal with them
already: pam_yubico and ykclient. I have packaged a library and a
client tool to customize the AES key in the device.
As I am (or hope to be) a new packager, I will need sponsorship. I'll
be more than happy to answer any questions about myself or the
packages if this is required.
I apologize if it is not customary to send introductions to these lists.
My two review requests are at:
1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557776
2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557794
Kind regards,
Maxim Burgerhout
maxim(a)wzzrd.com
----------------
GPG Fingerprint
EB11 5E56 E648 9D99 E8EF 05FB C513 6FD4 1302 B48A
13 years, 8 months
