Issues with Fortran modules
by Orion Poplawski
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
12 years, 10 months
Fedora Packaging Committee
by Tom Callaway
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
12 years, 11 months
code_vs_content clarification
by Rex Dieter
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
12 years, 11 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway
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
12 years, 11 months
Revised systemd Guidelines
by Tom Callaway
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
13 years
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
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
13 years
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Fedora default services
by Jason L Tibbitts III
>>>>> "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<
13 years
