May 2012 - packaging - Fedora Mailing-Lists

package: shrinkwrap-descriptors and arquillian

by Lin Gao

Hi, Could you please someone can take a look at the new package requests: shrinkwrap-descriptors[1] and arquillian[2]? Thank you very much! [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=824682 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=824838 -- BR Lin Gao

11 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

grive open source client for google drive

by Adrian Alves

Am about to package this: grive open source client for google drive http://match065.github.com/grive/ Just wondering in case if somebody else is working on it

11 years, 11 months

2
1
0 / 0

Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora

by Brendan Jones

Hi all, I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion for some time. The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer), software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin. Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict: with Fedora's qtractor. The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition. One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts Is this reasonable? regards, Brendan [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418

11 years, 11 months

3
6
0 / 0

gnome-shell-extension-updater for fedora

by Adrian Alves

Am about to package this: gnome-shell-extension-updater https://github.com/eonpatapon/gnome-shell-extension-updater Just wondering in case if somebody else is working on it

11 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

what do u think about package this owncloud

by Adrian Alves

http://owncloud.org/

11 years, 11 months

6
8
0 / 0

Manpages using %doc

by Tomas Radej

Hi, Is it possible for man pages to use the %doc macro in the %files section in a spec file? In Guidelines, there's no explicit mention of it, and I haven't found a package having this behavior. However, I am reviewing spacewalk-pylint ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800899 ), which does this: %files %doc %{_mandir}/man8/spacewalk-pylint.8* Can you please give me a stance on that? Thank you, -- Tomas Radej <tradej(a)redhat.com>

11 years, 11 months

7
6
0 / 0

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - 2012-05-09

by Tom Callaway

The Fedora Packaging Committee met at its regular day (Wednesday) and time (1600 UTC). Logs from the meeting can be found here: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-05-09/fpc.2012-05-... Minutes from the meeting can be found here: HTML: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-05-09/fpc.2012-05-... TXT: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-05-09/fpc.2012-05-... As a reminder, the Fedora Packaging Committee meets publicly and encourages community participation. Anyone can submit a draft of new guidelines or changes to existing guidelines (or even bundling exceptions) by following the process documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Guideline_Change_Proce... ~tom == Fedora Project

11 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

packaging a library

by Christopher Howard

Hey guys, I'm guessing that packaging a library must be a somewhat different process than packaging other software (because a library and a devel package must be produced), but I am not clear on what those differences are. I.e, what special information does the SPEC file require? Are the rpmbuild commands any different? I'd be glad to be pointed to the correct documentation. There didn't seem to be a section covering this in the Fedora RPM guide. -- frigidcode.com indicium.us

11 years, 11 months

6
6
0 / 0

Reusing the same git module for different compat versions?

by Michel Alexandre Salim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Is it permissible to use a single compat package to provide different 'compat' binary packages on different Fedora releases? The specific use case is for Vala: our Fedora packaging now allows for parallel installation; you already can rebuild and install Vala packages with different API levels side by side. Vala upstream tends to create new API releases quite often, however, and given that sometimes packages stop compiling against the newer API, providing API-specific compatibility versions seems to be a lot of work (and the package would have to be retired as soon as the targeted release is EOLed). Does the FPC allow having a single 'compat-vala' Git module, that would target the API level one lower than the one shipped in the main vala package, for every supported Fedora release? The package will be very similar to the main vala one and changes can just be cherry-picked, so maintenance is no problem. Thanks, - -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPo7PGAAoJEEr1VKujapN6KcMIAIQmfj0+Zf453A/H8vJ/4W/t QgYpF/R4lBhq+FOCKyZKiPMH2vinCPYfFkfXf/qEB19JbrrKFEKaaeTXsZwyVz9F vcFCjUQpKp2RBaD+hLkFnjAJnXVktdwBytSB2UEW9nNDTpvckV+roTzixJhRttwH 2LPcVlot8YAXGYExHe/bc14KNLR6bogtoeXDEG24ygVOv9EMvnKCFnP+HOPNcesS o+/tZQTkH0SiDE4vzFsvTdj5HMYe9v11oOaiqHYT7hLqdQwGP1RV9l5KbBwATM41 4zFvw8RSm91pmiKTGquBgDEqqVKJ4KLybM8KMmKAB9R363YlU94cJnr2/Z1w82c= =z8CO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

11 years, 11 months

6
7
0 / 0

should I include tests in the package?

by "Germán A. Racca"

Hi list: I'm the packager of APLpy: http://aplpy.github.com/ I'm going to update it to a new version, which comes with a set of tests, but I'm not sure about what to do with them. I asked upstream and the answer is: "The tests are there for us to diagnose any issues related to specific dependency versions and platforms, and to make sure that we don't break anything when making changes. It would be useful if you include them so that we can ask users to run them if they are having issues we can't reproduce, but you don't need to run the tests as part of the build/setup." I'm still not sure. Should I include them in the package? Have a nice day, Germán. -- Germán A. Racca Fedora Package Maintainer https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Skytux

11 years, 11 months

11
32
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging May 2012