Wrong update pushed to stable
by Rich Mattes
Hi,
I accidentally ended up with two versions of the "player" package in F13
updates-testing, that got pushed to stable in the same day
(player-3.0.1-6.fc13 and player-3.0.1-7.fc13). It looks like only the
-6 package landed in updates, but that package is broken due to a the
geos soname change; -7 was the rebuild to fix that problem and should be
the one in updates. Should I bump, rebuild and resubmit the package?
Rich Mattes
14 years
Building EPEL Packages
by Matthias Runge
Hi,
just trying to do a scratch build of a fedora-package for EPEL 5.
This fails, because MD5 sum does not match. Is there a known workaround
for this? Is there a way to rebuild a Fedora-SRPM EPEL 5 conformant?
DEBUG util.py:256: error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/builddir/build/SOURCES/django-lint-0.13.tar.bz2;4bbc65bb: cpio: MD5 sum
mismatch
DEBUG util.py:319: Child returncode was: 1
Installing Fedora SRPMs on RHEL requires the --nomd5 option for rpm-command.
Thanks,
Matthias
14 years
Songbird -> Nightingale
by Kamisamanou Burgess
There has been some discussion on the RedHat bugzilla about Songbird
dropping Linux support. I am here to let you know that Tom "spot" Callaway
may get his wishes.
We have started a project called Nightingale( http://getnightingale.org )
that seeks to fix Songbird under Linux, primarily. We are still in the
housekeeping phase of getting things moved over, created, etc. and I would
like to know what are the problems preventing Nightingale(formerly Lyrebird,
formerly Songbird) from being ready for Fedora other than the gstreamer
issue?
As far as the gstreamer issue is concerned, we want to use the distros
gstreamer, which should fix that problem.
--
Sayonara,
Kamisamanou Burgess
http://www.google.com/profiles/kamisamanou
http://identi.ca/kamisamanou
14 years
Packaging libraries
by Pau Garcia i Quiles
Hello,
I maintain several packages on Debian and I want to get started with
RPM packaging. I. e. I am not a total newbie :-)
I am now trying to package Wt ( http://webtoolkit.eu ) for Fedora. I
already maintain this package in Debian (
http://packages.debian.org/libwt ).
On Debian, package names are soversioned, so that it is possible to
coinstall several versions of the runtime libraries. For instance, Wt
2.2.4 contained libwt.so.12 (which would had been[*] in package
libwt12) and Wt 3.1.2 contains libwt.so.21 (which is in package
libwt21).
This is useful in case you have a library libX and have an application
app1 which depends on Wt 2.2.4 (i. e. libwt.so.12) and another
application, app2, which depends on Wt 3.1.2 (i. e. libwt.so.21). On
Debian, this would be solved by installing packages libx5 and libx6.
Keep in mind porting from Wt 2.2.4 to Wt 3.1.2 requires rewriting
code, therefore unless the Wt packages are versioned on Fedora, it
would be impossible to coinstall app1 and app2 on Fedora (on Debian it
would be as simple as coinstalling libwt12 and libwt21).
I wonder how Fedora deals with this issue.
I have seen nothing in the packaging guidelines (
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines ) or the RPM guide
( http://docs.fedoraproject.org/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ ), and I cannot
find a specific guide for library packaging (something like
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
for Debian)
[*] When I first packaged Wt for Debian, I did the horrible mistake of
not versioning package names. This required transitional packages,
which I will have to maintain until 2015 (!!!) because the old Wt
2.2.4 is what Canonical is shipping with Ubuntu Lucid. I'd rather not
make the same mistake again :-)
Thank you.
--
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
14 years
Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines
by Michael Schwendt
* A dozen packages fixed since February.
* 23 packages left to be fixed.
* To the remaining tickets I've added comments about whether anything
in the package collection links static with a library. I've experimented
with tools that examine koji build.log output in addition to verifying
the existence of SONAME dependencies in the builds.
In some cases, this has lead to finding packages which don't produce
verbose build.log output, however (because of not using Fedora's
CMake invocation or because of silencing Make or the compiler), e.g.
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556079#c1
* Bugzilla status for packages violating the Static Library guidelines:
http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html
acl 556036 -> CLOSED
atlas 556037 -> CLOSED
attr 556038 -> CLOSED
audit 556039 -> CLOSED
binutils 556040 -> CLOSED
brltty 556041
Canna 556034 -> CLOSED
cdparanoia 547682 -> CLOSED
comedilib 556043
dnssec-tools 556044
e2fsprogs 545144 -> CLOSED
expat 556046 -> CLOSED
fftw2 556047
file 556048 -> CLOSED
gcc 556049
gdbm 556050 -> CLOSED
ghostscript 556051 -> CLOSED
gnutls 556052 -> CLOSED
gpsim 556053 -> CLOSED
gtk+extra 556054 -> CLOSED
hpic 556055 -> CLOSED
isdn4k-utils 556056
js 556057 -> CLOSED
ldns 556058 -> CLOSED
libaio 556059 -> CLOSED
libannodex 556060 -> CLOSED
libbtctl 556061 -> CLOSED
libcaca 556062
libcddb 556063 -> CLOSED
libcdio 556064 -> CLOSED
libcmml 556065
libdnet 556066 -> CLOSED
libevent 556067
libftdi 556068 -> CLOSED
libnl 556069
liboggz 556070 -> CLOSED
libotr 556071
librx 556072 -> CLOSED
libsemanage 556073 -> CLOSED
libsndfile 556074
libstatgrab 556075 -> CLOSED
libtranslate 556076 -> CLOSED
libtwin 556077
libuninameslist 556078 -> CLOSED
libxslt 556079
link-grammar 556080
linux-atm 556081
linuxwacom 556082 -> CLOSED
lockdev 556083 -> CLOSED
meanwhile 556084 -> CLOSED
mpich2 545149 -> CLOSED
munipack 556086
nfs-utils-lib 556087
numactl 556088 -> CLOSED
opencdk 556089 -> CLOSED
openldap 556090 -> CLOSED
proj 556091 -> CLOSED
python 556092 -> CLOSED
QuantLib 556035 -> CLOSED
rubberband 556093
shapelib 556094 -> CLOSED
syck 556095 -> CLOSED
sysfsutils 556096 -> CLOSED
texlive 556097 -> CLOSED
torque 556098
util-vserver 556099
xbsql 556100 -> CLOSED
xen 556101
xfsprogs 556102 -> CLOSED
xmlsec1 556103
xqilla 562566 -> CLOSED
14 years
