packaging December 2012

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

28 participants
15 discussions

Get paid to package! (Etherpad Lite)
by Rich Jones 20 Feb '13

20 Feb '13

Hey all! I didn't post this bounty, but it came across our system and it seems like you guys might be able to earn a quick bit of money on this one: http://gun.io/contracts/16/rpm-based-install-for-etherpad-lite-on-rhel-128 Any takers? -- Rich Jones Director, Gun.io

7 6

purpose of ruby(abi), python(abi), etc
by Vít Ondruch 09 Jan '13

09 Jan '13

Hi, Can somebody enlighten me, what is the purpose of ruby(abi) (replace by python(abi) if you wish) virtual provide? Especially, why Ruby packaging guidelines mandate "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.9.1", i.e. versioned require? And why in Python packages, python(abi) is automatically generated? If the package is noarch, there is very high chance, that it would work with Ruby 1.8 as good as with Ruby 1.9 or even Ruby 2.0. If the package is arch dependent, it has automatically generated dependency on libruby.so.1.9. So there is no chance to install it or run it with other version of Ruby. Now why I am asking? We would like to have in F19 Ruby 2.0 accompanied by JRuby 1.7 and in the future, we would love to see these interpreters interchangeable, i.e. it doesn't matter which interpreter is on your system, since it will be able to run the gem/application shipped in Fedora. However, while Ruby 2.0 should provide "ruby(abi) = 2.0", JRuby are not yet fully 2.0 ready, so they should not provide "ruby(abi) = 2.0". Moreover, the term ABI with JRuby is a bit misleading. So how we can make every noarch ruby package compatible with both interpreters in terms of requires? One possibility would be to drop the abi version unless it is explicitly needed. However, it renders ruby(abi) as not the best virtual provide name for this goal. Any ideas? Vít

9 24

Re: [Fedora-packaging] package reviews: new Release for every update
by Michael Schwendt 02 Jan '13

02 Jan '13

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:42:02 +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes Could somebody with "Edit" access for this page please add it to category PackageMaintainers? Then it would appear on the main page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers which is linked at the left side of the Wiki. Thanks in advance! -- Fedora release 18 (Spherical Cow) - Linux 3.6.11-3.fc18.x86_64 loadavg: 0.11 0.06 0.05

3 2

parallel make
by Parag Nemade 27 Dec '12

27 Dec '12

Hi, I want to know is there any documentation available on parallel make? If a package is not building with parallel make then can we fix Makefile? Parag.

7 9

Fedora Review error.
by Sourav Basu 27 Dec '12

27 Dec '12

Hello Everyone, I'm trying to review packages using fedora-review. However when I am using "fedora-review -b xxxxxxx" option then it always fails. I have to use koji to do the review. Here's a result: [tumu@tumu ~]$ fedora-review -b 877763 Processing bugzilla bug: 877763 Bugzilla v0.7.0 initializing Chose subclass RHBugzilla v0.1 Trying bugzilla cookies for authentication Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 877763 --> SRPM url: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos-3.7.2-4.fc18.src.rpm --> Spec url: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos.spec Using review directory: /home/tumu/877763-gnome-photos Downloading .spec and .srpm files Downloading (Source0): http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-photos/3.7/gnome-photos-3.7.2.… Running checks and generate report ERROR: Exception(/home/tumu/877763-gnome-photos/srpm/gnome-photos-3.7.2-4.fc18.src.rpm) Config(fedora-16-i386) 0 minutes 8 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/tumu/877763-gnome-photos/results ERROR: Command failed: Probably non-rawhide buildroot used. Rawhide should be used for most package reviews Build failed rc = Build error(s) Error: 'Mock build failed.' (logs in ~/.cache/fedora-review.log) Why am I facing this problem all the time? Any idea? Regards, Sourav

2 2

Need help with the rpmbuild
by Sankar Tanguturi 26 Dec '12

26 Dec '12

Hi Everyone, Sorry if this is the wrong forum to post my question. We are working to upstream 'open-vm-tools'. Please check https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883614 for more details. I followed all the instructions specified in 'https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package' wiki and created a SPEC file. I executed 'rpmbuild' command and was able to build the RPM. But when I try to install the generated RPM, I get weird errors. [makerpm@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpm -i RPMS/i686/open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm error: Failed dependencies: 23879e73b56e03ec4021578fabc96107a6d645.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 296f536e590c574ca46dbbf83ef5d9c48a1496.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 3887c51239b4ac1dbfa82bb4ec604e8ccfc3e9.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 3f61116741824d14b05af8741d292d76941339.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 62e7dd4b08fdbf4bfa7183d3c2e42b7a7be3e6.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 71d274053d85397facd43921768ad642e3ed75.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 a2514595ec61e445de4554d33bc24f98f8ccee.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 a33a27d346d8a7fa158067f8ff5146ba1f9e7c.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 b30064484109a463fc9da7028747f5bc5bce3e.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 b90ed6bedca1b983f72e147e1cae5cb742bed8.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 ca8c559a0588472c4438abeb2e77b5a986a21d.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 d6134c7ca30ea780904d0467d1e82e758c21e2.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686 ... I don't have any idea what these random generated numbers are and where they are coming from. I am very much sure 'open-vm-tools' package doesn't build/generate these .debug files. Can someone help resolve this issue. Any help would be greatly appreciated. ~Thanks and Regards Sankar Aditya Tanguturi

4 4

guayadeque pkgconfig question
by Martin Gansser 23 Dec '12

23 Dec '12

Hi, i am working on a review of guayadeque https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 since serveral month. my question is: how is the best way to handle this particular wx lib using cmake. Can someone with more knowledge suggest a solution. Ivan the reviewer[mailto:drizt@land.ru] didn't respond on any questions... he continues to insist that pkgconfig is the right way to do it. thanks Martin

2 4

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Strange gdm packaging
by Michael Schwendt 22 Dec '12

22 Dec '12

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:36:26 -0500 (EST), Ray Strode wrote: > > Has this been introduced recently, or has it been like that always? > > > > Looking through the history, it's been that way as long as there was a libs subpackage. > I didn't do a very good job documenting adding the subpackage in the commit message either. > I just snuck it into a "upgrade to latest release" message: > > Date: Tue Oct 18 22:47:14 2011 -0400 Okay, that explains it. I've filed a bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/889674 It would be EasyFix, but there is an explicit dep in "gnome-shell" on "gdm-libs" (for the gi file) already, and it's not clear to me yet whether gnome-shell also wants files from "gdm" (via the indirect dep currently). That makes the -libs subpackage questionable.

1 0

Strange gdm packaging
by Michael Schwendt 22 Dec '12

22 Dec '12

gdm-libs : /usr/lib/girepository-1.0/Gdm-1.0.typelib 36588 gdm-devel : /usr/include/gdm 4096 /usr/include/gdm/gdm-client-glue.h 40152 /usr/include/gdm/gdm-client.h 6634 /usr/include/gdm/gdm-sessions.h 1314 /usr/include/gdm/gdm-user-switching.h 1128 /usr/include/gdm/simple-greeter/gdm-login-extension.h 6496 /usr/lib/pkgconfig/gdm.pc 224 /usr/lib/pkgconfig/gdmsimplegreeter.pc 295 /usr/share/gir-1.0/Gdm-1.0.gir 340747 gdm : … /usr/lib64/libgdm.so 15 /usr/lib64/libgdm.so.1 15 /usr/lib64/libgdm.so.1.0.0 145648 /usr/lib64/libgdmsimplegreeter.so 28 /usr/lib64/libgdmsimplegreeter.so.1 28 /usr/lib64/libgdmsimplegreeter.so.1.0.0 91832 … Has this been introduced recently, or has it been like that always?

2 1

Creating a "super rpm" that installs other rpms
by Fred White 21 Dec '12

21 Dec '12

Hello, I'm creating a "super rpm" which in turn installs other rpms, and executes a script and performs non-interactive installation (using expect). These are application specific RPMs and are currently not available in our rhn/spacewalk channels. These RPMs needs to be installed in a specific order and some of them also needs to be installed with nodeps (rpm -i --nodeps), since there are missing dependencies, and there are vendor instructions to do so. I'm seeking advise and suggestions on two issues below: Issue 1) What are general Fedora packaging guidelines around creating such an RPM? I'm looking to understand what are the caveats (non-recommendations) to this approach. - I'm not adding a list of these RPMs in the %Requires section of the SPEC file because that requires further modification of the rhn/spacewalk channels. - RPM installation will be done in the %install section and the script will be run in the %postinstall using expect (haven't looked at this yet) Issue 2) I went ahead and built this anyway. Please fine snippet from the SPEC file and output here: http://fpaste.org/fuK4/ I'm not clearing RPM_BUILD_ROOT in my install section, but while building it clears it anyway, hence my installation fails since there are not rpms there at that time. Is this normal? So what *should* happen is: %prep .. unpacking source .. cp %(_builddir)/foo %(buildroot) %install rpm -ivh a.rpm But instead: %prep .. unpacking source .. cp %(_builddir)/foo %(buildroot) %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT .. no rpms to install Any advise and suggestions is highly appreciated. - Thanks!

7 6

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging December 2012