packaging December 2010

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
13 discussions

Issues with Fortran modules
by Orion Poplawski 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660035 for the spark for this. Apparently there is a "GFORTRAN module version" number assigned to Fortran modules created by gfortran: ==> /usr/lib/gfortran/modules/hdf5.mod <== GFORTRAN module version '4' created from ../../../fortran/src/HDF5.f90 on Thu Oct 28 14:43:23 2010 ==> /usr/lib/gfortran/modules/netcdf.mod <== GFORTRAN module version '0' created from netcdf4.f90 on Mon Apr 19 20:30:19 2010 Now, apparently from gcc 4.4.3 -> 4.5.1 this changed from 0 to 4, and apparently there is no backwards compatibility: Fatal Error: Wrong module version '0' (expected '4') for file 'netcdf.mod' opened at (1) So, it makes sense to me to encode this into the rpm dependencies somehow. Perhaps gcc-gfortran can provides a gfortran-abi(VERSION) and the gfortran module packages can require it. rpm would need to automatically generate the requires though. Thoughts? Suggestions? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

3 2

Macro %{optflags}
by Sergio Belkin 23 Jan '11

23 Jan '11

Hi, Does Makefile flags from the tarball overrides %{optflags} ? Thanks in advance! -- -- Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com Sergio Belkin -

5 10

Broken anchors in Packaging Guidelines
by Michael Schwendt 27 Dec '10

27 Dec '10

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles currently don't link at existing sections in the guidelines. Somebody with write permission in that Wiki section please fix this Thank you!

2 1

Fedora Packaging Committee
by Tom Callaway 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

Just as a heads-up, the Fedora Packaging Committee will not meet for the next two weeks because of the holidays. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday January 5th, 2011 at 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Happy holidays, ~tom == Fedora Project

1 0

code_vs_content clarification
by Rex Dieter 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Code_Vs_Content was mentioned to me today as a justification to disallow some religious- related software into fedora (some study software in this context). At first, I thought that guideline was more about packaging content-only (ie, to avoid something silly like trying to package the library of congress), but reading it again, seems not so. If that's the case, what is the justification here (besides avoiding potential controversy)? -- Rex

2 1

Re: [Fedora-packaging] [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

On 12/15/2010 03:25 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote: > In my opinion the guideline should be something like this instead of blindly > banning executable %doc files: > > "Files marked as documentation must not cause additional dependencies that > aren't satisfied by the package itself or its dependency chain as it would be > if none of its files marked as documentation were included in the package." I would be okay with that. Might be slightly harder to enforce though. ~tom == Fedora Project

1 0

Why do Fedora python packages install in site-packages?
by Richard W.M. Jones 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

I'm confused why Fedora Python packages get installed in /usr/lib/python*/site-packages/. Looking at the upstream Python documentation[1] it seems this directory is reserved for packages installed by the local system administrator. (Similar to the Perl distinction between INSTALLDIRS=vendor / INSTALLDIRS=site / INSTALLDIRS=core [2]) Not directly relevant, but Debian reserves[3] site-packages for the system administrator, and puts Python packages in its own directory (/usr/lib/python*/dist-packages). Is this a mistake or am I not understanding the distinction? Rich. [1] http://docs.python.org/install/index.html [2] http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=47396#txn-629736 [3] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python.html -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora

2 4

Revised systemd Guidelines
by Tom Callaway 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

Many thanks to Lennart for writing the initial text for the systemd guidelines. I've taken his draft and reworked it a bit so that it matches the flow and style of the existing guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft Keep in mind that %{_unitdir} is undefined at the moment, we would add it to redhat-rpm-config before this draft becomes a guideline. Please look it over and give any feedback. Thanks, ~tom == Fedora Project

5 9

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Fedora default services (was: Re: F15 Feature - convert as many service init files as possible to the native SystemD services)
by Toshio Kuratomi 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 07:14:16AM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > 2010/12/7 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com>: > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:38:07AM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > >> 2010/12/7 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com>: > >> > Those might be > >> > able to start defining a category of "things needed to run a desktop > >> > session" or something. > >> > > >> > iptables, > >> > >> no chance to disable this > >> > > I'd be more inclined to ask what benefit we have to turning the firewall off > > vs having a more permissive set of firewall rules by default. AFAIK, > > turning the firewall on doesn't currently turn on any additional daemon -- > > it just sets up the defined rules. > > > >> I guess ip6tables too? > >> > > Yep. > > > > Would you be willing to write up a Packaging Draft and add it to the FPC > > tracker? If not, I'll bring it up in the Packaging Meeting on Wednesday > > morning. > > I'm not Fedora developer, I just create service files :) Okay... I doubt we'll nail this down for a while then.... Here's the ticket I've opened: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/41 I have a feeling those categories don't account for everything yet... For instance, readahead, abrtd... look in your /etc/init.d/ directory on F14 and tell me what things that are there could have a justification. -Toshio

1 0

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Fedora default services
by Jason L Tibbitts III 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

>>>>> "MP" == Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4(a)gmail.com> writes: MP> Dear FPC people, could you provide this list in the near future? We haven't even met since it was decided that we were to do this. I imagine it would take a couple of meetings to bang out a list. - J<

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging December 2010