packaging April 2011

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

17 participants
8 discussions

Upgrade scriptlet
by Thomas Moschny 01 May '11

01 May '11

Hi, when I want a script to be run during package upgrade, is it better to call it in %postun if $1>=1, or to call it in %post if $1>1? Is one of the two possibilities preferred? Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny(a)gmail.com>

5 12

[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

Here are the latest changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines: --- A new set of guidelines have been written for handling systemd in packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines:Systemd https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd --- A new set of guidelines have been written for packaging Octave packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Octave --- Some clarification was added to the Guidelines section on Macros. Previously, it said: "Use macros instead of hard-coded directory names (see Packaging:RPMMacros )." Now, that line has been replaced with: "Packagers are strongly encouraged to use macros instead of hard-coded directory names (see Packaging:RPMMacros ). However, in situations where the macro is longer than the path it represents, or situations where the packager feels it is cleaner to use the actual path, the packager is permitted to use the actual path instead of the macro. There are several caveats to this approach: * The package must be consistent. For any given path, within the same spec, use either a hard-coded path or a macro, not a combination of the two. * %{_libdir} must always be used for binary libraries due to multi-lib, you may not substitute a hard-coded path. " https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros --- The Guidelines covering MinGW packaging have been updated for Fedora 16. The previous guidelines still apply for older Fedora releases (Fedora 15 and older) and all RHEL releases. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW_Old --- The Packaging Guidelines have been updated to allow the use of /run and to clarify that directory hierarchies not listed in the FHS are not allowed unless listed in the Packaging Guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout --- In the past (pre rpm 4.4), it was necessary to have a %defattr section at the beginning of each %files section, but this is now the default and no longer necessary to explicitly include. The guidelines have been updated in numerous places to remove references to hard-coded %defattr sections. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions --- The Scriptlets for GSettings have been updated to: %postun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : fi %posttrans glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema --- These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC). Many thanks to Christopher Aillon, Richard W. M. Jones, Erik van Pienbroek, Lennart Poettering, Orion Poplawski, Julian Sikorski, and all of the members of the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing these guidelines. As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure Thanks, ~spot

3 2

[RFC] revised Haskell Packaging Guidelines (v2.0)
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

Hi, After a long while I have finally gotten down to finishing a new draft of the Packaging Guidelines for Haskell packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell Since there have been a lot of changes in the macros and packaging since the current version, they have been largely rewritten to reflect and clarify the current .spec templates being used by the Haskell SIG. Feedback and comments welcome. Thanks, Jens

1 0

Current gsettings scriptlets will lead to broken upgrades
by Christopher Aillon 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

Please see http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-April/150540.html Julian's followup post gave an example of how to fix the scriptlet: %postun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : fi %posttrans glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || :

1 0

xwax in Fedora?
by John Brier 18 Apr '11

18 Apr '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would love to package xwax for Fedora xwax reads special timecoded vinyls/CDs for the purpose of DJing and playing audio files from your computer. My concern is it *might* not pass this part of the Packaging Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_… It starts the decoding process in a separate thread and uses vorbis-tools flac but also mpg123 faad (AAC) ffmpeg Now it will work without those last 3, it will compile and run fine, just if a user tries to play a file that would require one of those decoders it will just generate an error to stdout/stderr saying /usr/libexec/xwax-import: line 41: exec: ffmpeg: not found or something similar. ( http://cupcakecarnival.net/gallery/main.php/v/Computers/Screenshots/Screens… ) but it will keep running fine. So in that sense I htink it is still *useful* without the external bits because it still works with free codecs. The only other small concern that I'm aware of is that it's a GUI application, but it has no .desktop file and I don't think it should because the program is setup entirely from command line flags. There is no way to configure it after it is started. If you run the command line with no options (without setting the sound card to read from example) it will not start and tell you to read the help ( -h) Does xwax meet Fedora's guidelines? - -- John Brier, RHCA, RHCVA, RHCX Senior Technical Support Engineer - NA gpg: 1024D/251D9FF9 6F7B 242A 9375 F4CC BC6D F453 60D8 35FF 251D 9FF9 http://opensource.com - Where Open Source Multiplies -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk2sleEACgkQYNg1/yUdn/mGIQCfZTtbWqvB7d1+BE1fnd1iiB2l nhsAnA9+mT1djd8Z9Ekd6QL0ZjEg4g4h =REJ+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 3

Fwd: Re: packages moving from gconf to gsettings
by Julian Sikorski 18 Apr '11

18 Apr '11

caillon suggested this is a better place to ask such questions, so here is goes. Julian ------ Wiadomość oryginalna ------ Temat: Re: packages moving from gconf to gsettings Data: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 01:15:06 +0200 Nadawca: Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com> Odpowiedź-Do: Development discussions related to Fedora <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> Adresat: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Grupy dyskusyjne: gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel Odniesienia: <io58kc$dm4$1(a)dough.gmane.org> W dniu 14.04.2011 00:38, Julian Sikorski pisze: > Dear List, > > I was just trying to update gnome-mplayer (not in fedora, but that is > irrelevant) which migrated from gconf to gsettings. The problem is, that > the standard scriptlets [1] do not run on upgrades, leaving the package > in a not working state (not running even). > I think it would be good to establish some guidelines to handle such > cases, since packages moving from gconf to gsettings are likely to > become more and more common. > > Cheers, > Julian > > [1] > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema > I came up with the following, please let me know what you think: %postun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : fi %posttrans glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : Julian -- devel mailing list devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

1 0

Conditional comparision doesn't work
by Christoph Wickert 11 Apr '11

11 Apr '11

I have a spec with %global panelversion 4.8.3 or %global panelversion %(rpm -q --qf='%{VERSION}' xfce4-panel) As expected this returns "4.8.3" and Requires: xfce4-panel >= %{panelversion} works fine. However %if 0%{?panelversion} >= 4.7 %patch3 -p1 %endif does not but returns: Error: xfce4-cellmodem-plugin.spec:54: parseExpressionBoolean returns -1 Do I miss something obvious? Regards, Christoph

6 8

Review guidelines source checksum algorithm
by Garrett Holmstrom 02 Apr '11

02 Apr '11

The main review guidelines page [1] specifically requires that one use md5sum to compare packages' tarballs against those from upstream. Is it necessary to require a specific algorithm? If so, should it still be MD5 in this day and age? [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

3 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging April 2011