May 2013 - packaging - Fedora mailing-lists

Can we allow such URL?
by Christopher Meng 11 Jun '13

11 Jun '13

Hi, Handling the GitHub URL is a painful work. Can we allow this? https://github.com/$OWNER/$PROJECT/archive/%{version}.tar.gz Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

8 11

Changelog usage clarification
by Antonio Trande 02 Jun '13

02 Jun '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all. I need a clarification about the Changelog section in a spec file during a package review process. In particular, pursuant to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs guidelines: > Every time you make changes, that is, whenever you increment the E-V-R >of a package, add a changelog entry. > ... Changelog entries should provide a brief summary of the changes > done to the package between releases, including noting updating to > a new version, adding a patch, fixing other spec sections, note > bugs fixed, and CVE's if any In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966201, David says that Changelog changes' list is not necessary during package review process because it is still a "initial package" state. For all my packages and not only, every one always asks me to update the Changelog, also for a minimal modification in a package pre-review/review process. To be sure and to resolve this issue with David, I need some clarification regard to how to use properly the Changelog section since the first package review submit. Greetings. - -- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitter AT fedoraproject.org www.fedora-os.org GPG Key: D400D6C4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRqMTHAAoJED2vIvfUANbEkDUP/RmG69AYhO4OyzDhkeqI+EW1 55OmsuFP6TuYaXsP3F5aFTiYFqIUrb2GtH58cWIX8Ou3jmUDjTZGbVKGgCa97O/W 7ONDTX2elc25ZdSoz9iehBOY/SafokRM8ZxSDUIWWzxCVnSrkygAw8fDnWIXEIoF lIC0pdt/B8BL/BY/2sxKJW8MSQT42LWp2ym67HpmPU3lTQLsJz/TUzFrRBl+fEi0 AojmiT/EUGt1PWqMxvp/n2ASG29/VAag+8heiV7B/08xX+/W2pq1URPBBfO2YIf6 VWQ1jBNHYs7lhvbOov3KKHLsZ57Mz2K8tTeCwHYEWBTOfuTiGbFy1OwuuhBLTQs9 Yb6M8eXCiy646/cOXvNeUyE3Rp1Z5doJYB/Fr2fgXeBpVZa1sqDX8tfJrW1poRpb 97WXsn7Rs23QVu+eU5Dngh7ZJjNOnVHI31e9qVuUGnUnGHmDj3eVeKr0dyEIkZvI 7V3qpLJYwzXcS+Ugz8d+2CvMOqAzZ4fMZZz6sYGt5N4RGYboWdlhJtZezqhevAXS uzi9328o3RCJMg7dMGzCUAfNxzYLevFWEZ4D3fmpJGJvF4c8YFc/wqmuBLjS03Nq 6AESQsZ9tjAUbiO3FQni1zs95q6fRaQbT/K19kcaCbJxQDPNhhrafF4Rzqoe9FkT iG6dlsQKqNuBEZZ1HHbB =HLdP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 9

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-05-30 16:00 - 16:30 UTC)
by James Antill 30 May '13

30 May '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 16:01:40 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-05-30/fpc.2013-05-30… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 16:01:48) * Bundling libxdiff in libgit2 - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/276 (spot, 16:06:54) * ACTION: spot needs more clones. (spot, 16:07:11) * Add note about network access to guidelines - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/295 (spot, 16:08:12) * ACTION: approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:10:46) * Simplifying Ruby Guidelines - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/296 (spot, 16:11:43) * ACTION: draft rejected, tests must be unpacked in %prep to allow for patching. (+1:0, 0:0, -1:7) (spot, 16:16:32) * Open Floor (spot, 16:16:39) Meeting ended at 16:29:24 UTC. Action Items ------------ * spot needs more clones. * approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * draft rejected, tests must be unpacked in %prep to allow for patching. (+1:0, 0:0, -1:7) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * spot * spot needs more clones. * **UNASSIGNED** * approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * draft rejected, tests must be unpacked in %prep to allow for patching. (+1:0, 0:0, -1:7) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (29) * RemiFedora (16) * tibbs|w (13) * limburgher (9) * abadger1999 (6) * SmootherFrOgZ (5) * geppetto (5) * zodbot (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Retired eclipse-wtp-jst-web, can't access rel-eng trac to file ticket
by Gerard Ryan 28 May '13

28 May '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi, I've just retired eclipse-wtp-jst-web from rawhide and F19. I'm following the instructions on the wiki[0], but I'm failing at the last step. It says: File a ticket[1] for rel-eng (component koji) asking the package to be blocked from the appropriate collections in which it is retired. I'm getting an error on the trac page saying that "TICKET_CREATE privileges are required to perform this operation". Any suggestions? Thanks a lot, Gerard. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life [1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/newticket -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRpRCaAAoJEG7cfkpivEoVIe8P/jj4GcIae6vL00FxI/r+b3b/ f9bgwOV+BrXpqzuLPoZ6ZAkjXR/evvQaGylkMvnDeW4Eu+lL42MfYuMW7rBmCzRm Wif3+XSuw+XAuDYP6qbE1FcfzHs+RodR8nLgfbaGpqjJoDjJ4JEQRtGJYk0CzM8C b7NdcrJrCn5ML0k0/hIxPJGGHXS0quEhPYaorTjLkC13skiinjUM/0JSyHCJXfLw 6ho93DW1t5PP2vm4OKtL7ZLC3liDwQZQANLu1laC2cgoq0XBan9vC6k0hXRjf7Wu 56AlxMlutV9fqLmLsEj0uO+D/NaFcSGojjuQxy0egjGT+Xkt9GQ6tK6xouE60IHl 4hba4C55gqwamMzT91mc1nGCZsks8RXETHtqWqt2Jxng2BRjEb58VVX+JebThxey qota7BGw/2WMlVB3+VIsXa2H7krUsZ52d4rpFHf/rkzhcK3eqQ0UV47nrc78Sskj ITcWbR7k7WfcO9NnGn4X44E6mySxrOhVAT+Bt7JuPqYW2UNctr4YOKYkli9Eq4tQ ZQwtIhusN/niJcOI0tJWA22uNfHfMwGVFS0yOQ5SdiVgssEZwHcaF2fA5nGCsikC 1uX3EQK56y66JKMxU9CoUPs9TiJuBp1buSgnH1dZ8jRm4USCZnVAVcHkuTl/8b+6 Xm/nsk+FEmZOwp39lVE6 =udfR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

mod_security bundling code from 3rd party
by Athmane Madjoudj 28 May '13

28 May '13

Hi The new version of mod_security (2.7.4) includes a 3rd party code: libinjection an SQL/SQL injection tokenizer parser analyzer, according to the parser developer, libinjection is supposed to be embedded into your code [1] and does not seem to be compiled as shared lib. In mod_security this library is used as an alternative approach for detecting SQL injection (vs. regex-based whitelist/blacklist). My question is: do we consider this code as a Copylibs or I should proceed with unbundling it from mod_security code. [1] https://github.com/client9/libinjection#embedding PS. I'm one of mod_security maintainer, ccing Peter and Daniel Thanks. -- Athmane

1 0

F19: Broken dependencies: tntnet
by Martin Gansser 24 May '13

24 May '13

Hi, i get for several days always the following message tntnet has broken dependencies in the F-19 tree: On x86_64: tntnet-2.1-15.fc19.x86_64 requires libcxxtools.so.8()(64bit) On i386: tntnet-2.1-15.fc19.i686 requires libcxxtools.so.8 Please resolve this as soon as possible. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-7921/tntnet-2.2-3.fc19?… how can i solve this ?

3 4

How to push updates more quickly?
by Christopher Meng 23 May '13

23 May '13

Hi, I'm maintaining youtube-dl, however this software often has updates. So I want to know if there is an quicker way to push them to stable? Currently when I update it to x version in testing channel, it just released y version before x becomes stable. So after many times this package still roll in the testing. Thanks.

3 5

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-05-23 16:00 - 17:30 UTC)
by James Antill 23 May '13

23 May '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 15:59:49 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-05-23/fpc.2013-05-23… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 15:59:59) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts% 2FMinGWCrossCompiler&diff=337954&oldid=302743 is helpful (spot, 16:03:36) * Updated MinGW Packaging Guidelines - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/294 - https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts% 2FMinGWCrossCompiler&diff=337954&oldid=302743 (spot, 16:05:14) * ACTION: Draft + "Executables which are required for proper functionality of the libraries must be packaged in the matching mingw32/mingw64 subpackage. All other executables are discouraged, but may be packaged in optional (dependent) subpackages at a packager's discretion." passes (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) (spot, 16:33:15) * LogFiles Guidelines - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/142 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/Packaging/LogFiles (spot, 16:37:53) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Spot/Packaging/LogFiles (spot, 16:56:48) * ACTION: Revised spot logfile draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 17:11:00) * Open Floor (spot, 17:12:51) Meeting ended at 17:28:26 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Draft + "Executables which are required for proper functionality of the libraries must be packaged in the matching mingw32/mingw64 subpackage. All other executables are discouraged, but may be packaged in optional (dependent) subpackages at a packager's discretion." passes (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) * Revised spot logfile draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * spot * Revised spot logfile draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * **UNASSIGNED** * Draft + "Executables which are required for proper functionality of the libraries must be packaged in the matching mingw32/mingw64 subpackage. All other executables are discouraged, but may be packaged in optional (dependent) subpackages at a packager's discretion." passes (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (96) * tibbs|w (86) * abadger1999 (45) * geppetto (26) * epienbro2 (20) * racor (19) * limburgher (17) * RemiFedora (9) * zodbot (3) * nirik (2) * epienbro (2) * Ablu (2) * SmootherFrOgZ (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-05-23 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 22 May '13

22 May '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-05-23 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-05-23 09:00 Thu US/Pacific 2013-05-23 12:00 Thu US/Eastern 2013-05-23 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-05-23 17:00 Thu Europe/London 2013-05-23 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris 2013-05-23 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin 2013-05-23 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-05-24 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore 2013-05-24 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong 2013-05-24 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo 2013-05-24 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.

1 0

Packaging software written in Go
by Christopher Meng 22 May '13

22 May '13

Hi, Is there any reference I can see to help packaging go language programs? I can only find such guidelines at opensuse: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Go Myabe should I file a ticket at FPC? Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

2 1

Do we need to add %{_isa} flag?
by Christopher Meng 18 May '13

18 May '13

Hi, I don't know if RPM can handle the architecture-specific requires smartly. Now I have a review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029 In fact I've seen many packages without this flag and I don't know if I still need to add it now. Thanks. *Yours sincerely,* *Christopher Meng* Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

3 3

scriptlets exit status documentation change
by Chris Cheney 17 May '13

17 May '13

Currently the documentation for scriptlets says that the exit status should be 0 otherwise it will break installs/upgrades/erases. However on newer versions of rpm this doesn't actually happen, instead rpm ignores the exit status of scriptlets and continues to install packages and returns an exit status 0 from rpm. Previous versions of rpm returned an error exit code if a scriptlet failed but this no longer happens. I think the documentation should probably be rewritten such that it states more clearly that the exit status of scriptlets MUST be 0 and that if one fails rpm will essentially ignore the failure. Chris --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets "Except in some really exceptional cases (if any), we want all scriptlets to exit with the zero exit status. Because rpm in its default configuration does not at the moment execute shell scriptlets with the -e argument to the shell, excluding explicit exit calls (frowned upon with a non-zero argument!), the exit status of the last command in a scriptlet determines its exit status. Most commands in the snippets in this document have a "|| :" appended to them, which is a generic trick to force the zero exit status for those commands whether they worked or not. Usually the most important bit is to apply this to the last command executed in a scriptlet, or to add a separate command such as plain ":" or "exit 0" as the last one in a scriptlet. Note that depending on the case, other error checking/prevention measures may be more appropriate, as well as running some commands only if we saw a previous command in the scriptlet which is a must prerequisite to succeed. Non-zero exit codes from scriptlets break installs/upgrades/erases so that no further actions will be taken for that package in a transaction (see scriptlet ordering below), which may for example prevent an old version of a package from being erased on upgrades, leaving behind duplicate rpmdb entries and possibly stale, unowned files on the filesystem. There are some cases where letting the transaction to proceed when some things in scriptlets failed may result in partially broken setup. It is however often limited to that package only whereas letting a transaction to proceed with some packages dropped out on the fly is more likely to result in broader system wide problems."

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-05-16 16:00 - 17:50 UTC)
by James Antill 16 May '13

16 May '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 16:00:27 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-05-16/fpc.2013-05-16… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 16:01:25) * Bundling exception for agg in mapnik - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/279 (spot, 16:06:24) * Permissions on Files and Directories - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/286 (spot, 16:07:53) * ACTION: abadger1999's simplified draft (http://www.fpaste.org/12580/13687220/) approved (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:38:06) * Bundling exception for agg in mapnik - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/279 (spot, 16:39:49) * Bundling exception request for sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/287 (spot, 16:47:29) * ACTION: Exception granted (+1:6, 0:0, -1:2) (spot, 17:04:31) * Octave Provides Filtering - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/290 (spot, 17:05:45) * ACTION: Draft Approved (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 17:09:20) * copylib: mt19937ar.c - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/291 (spot, 17:09:38) * ACTION: Exception approved as a copylib (+1:8 0:0 -1:0) (spot, 17:13:14) * Request for permission for usage of autogenerated sources - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/289 (spot, 17:13:54) * glassfish-jaxb-api and OpenJDK - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/292 (spot, 17:29:14) * ACTION: Exception for openjdk to bundle JAXP and JAX-WS is granted (glassfish does not need one) (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 17:49:27) Meeting ended at 17:50:12 UTC. Action Items ------------ * abadger1999's simplified draft (http://www.fpaste.org/12580/13687220/) approved (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) * Exception granted (+1:6, 0:0, -1:2) * Draft Approved (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) * Exception approved as a copylib (+1:8 0:0 -1:0) * Exception for openjdk to bundle JAXP and JAX-WS is granted (glassfish does not need one) (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * abadger1999 * abadger1999's simplified draft (http://www.fpaste.org/12580/13687220/) approved (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) * **UNASSIGNED** * Exception granted (+1:6, 0:0, -1:2) * Draft Approved (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) * Exception approved as a copylib (+1:8 0:0 -1:0) * Exception for openjdk to bundle JAXP and JAX-WS is granted (glassfish does not need one) (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (145) * tibbs|w (76) * abadger1999 (53) * geppetto (47) * limburgher (45) * Rathann (29) * racor (13) * RemiFedora (13) * Smoother1rOgZ (9) * nirik (4) * rdieter (4) * zodbot (4) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-05-16 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 15 May '13

15 May '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-05-16 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-05-16 09:00 Thu US/Pacific 2013-05-16 12:00 Thu US/Eastern 2013-05-16 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-05-16 17:00 Thu Europe/London 2013-05-16 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris 2013-05-16 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin 2013-05-16 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-05-17 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore 2013-05-17 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong 2013-05-17 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo 2013-05-17 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = Followups = #topic #279 Bundling exception for agg in mapnik .fpc 279 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/279 = New business = #topic #286 permission on files and directories .fpc 286 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/286 #topic #287 Bundling exception request for sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw .fpc 287 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/287 #topic #289 Request for permission for usage of autogenerated sources .fpc 289 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/289 #topic #290 Octave provides filtering .fpc 290 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/290 #topic #291 copylib: mt19937ar.c .fpc 291 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/291 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.

1 0

queries about merging 2 packages
by Gerard Ryan 13 May '13

13 May '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi packaging, I've got two packages which should be one. The reason they were two before was because of some strange circular dependencies, iirc. This doesn't apply anymore since the upstream project have moved from CVS to Git, and seem to have moved some things between some of their subproject repositories to fix the circular dependency problem. So, the package that I want to drop hasn't been built for Rawhide or F19 yet, and I don't think it should be. I haven't updated the main package to merge in the split one yet (it's ready, just waiting for broken deps). My questions are mainly about what steps do I need to do to do this as cleanly as possible: - - Do I need to manually put in any 'Obsoletes' or 'Provides' or anything like that? Nothing else uses the split package apart from a couple of my other packages, which I will remove (Build)Requires from. - - Since it hasn't been built in F19 yet, is there anything I need to do to other than retire it in pkgdb? I've never dropped or retired any packages so I'm not sure of the steps that need to be done. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide, Gerard. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRjs3dAAoJEG7cfkpivEoVCUkQAIwAeayZh3VRoHaJ08Tq/FAb 58Jx+1WE85RKR7qVUWGOleBoQ/upKc921tBtHz+ewX6F+Bs7PIKcQ/ljambhj2p1 R5yN8Oit2LdkJ9qGDa758vUubK+UfVuKUTPKVK+yOetr2+i/29VCRvUVEnMOFoM0 GOuPh5wagjEY+Wd1P+cTtwMMJxnx67/UMqnlNthRffUFKvHKYD6uoI8m+WQNhQWH PjDw2pdt/DkouznOSz64Wb2R3uUzfeI5+gHGADOxxkWdek9NCC1GVL23jA587EIc IL6T2vOtr6bParcic7exWgjkxlYd7Z4YZsvmPYrp0IszGQh3weO3dowTsXZtBFTB XfBhC7nGby1JG+L5VwLDpPEI4OVaecxyeRNhFly0bspX0UI+bI6jqJKX2188WDYW HZPfE6BOdwlbKVpEoxW0+NAPesjSqkA0+3JwW3aENb1Uv9fDkv8RUlpWao5hwCar CNwQtwantBEdE2EpvgrWrPnqkazd+VZJMkeXx403zYo0hRHwNQydrvb5pxZKznSC atAUyImUhLOqpfUwKB5o0jhZbeOC9ClhkMTeq47mSphbACng6GhTis2ShqCtMvom 6G9nfa3029F+L88SgwHQLHSn42aZwVSPfZzpgM2ZW59joTpMZmpnJONaH/9LKALV mEYM/kd70ZtE9iK+TAQV =G5qS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 5

Using autogenerated sources
by Susi Lehtola 13 May '13

13 May '13

Hi, I've just introduced libint2 into Fedora. It is a package that contains a) a compiler for generating the source code for an optimized library b) the generated library itself which is used by end users I'd like to get branches for the package for EPEL5 and EPEL6 as well, but the problem is that building the compiler needs C++11 support, which is not available in EPEL. Is it OK if I do step a) locally and use the pregenerated sources for the EPEL branches? The Fedora branches would still do the whole bootstrap process. -- Susi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

2 4

Open Seat on the Fedora Packaging Committee
by Tom Callaway 09 May '13

09 May '13

The Fedora Packaging Committee has one open seat and is accepting submissions from interested candidates to serve on the FPC. The FPC would like to thank Rex Dieter for his service, as he is stepping down after several years. This position involves not only reviewing Packaging Guideline drafts submitted to the FPC for consideration, but also rewriting drafts (sometimes from scratch) to resolve the issue in a more acceptable fashion. Additionally, the FPC reviews bundling exceptions (and UID/GID soft static assignment). The FPC meets on IRC weekly, Wednesdays at 1600 UTC, for approximately an hour. FPC members serve for as long as they are willing, there are currently no term limits. All decisions are voted on using a +1 (for), 0 (abstain), and -1 (against) mechanism, and all decisions must be approved by a majority (+5). FPC Meetings do not happen if quorum (5) is not present. Candidates who are interested should provide the following details to the FPC for consideration, by emailing it directly to me (tcallawa(a)redhat.com) The FPC will consider all candidates, but strongly prefers candidates who have extensive experience packaging in Fedora. We will accept applications for the next week (deadline Wednesday Apr 24, 2013). Name: FAS Account: Provenpackager? (Yes/No): Main area of packaging interest/expertise: Reason(s) for wanting to join the FPC: Thanks in advance, ~tom == Fedora Project

1 1

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-05-09 16:00 - 17:05 UTC)
by James Antill 09 May '13

09 May '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 16:03:10 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-05-09/fpc.2013-05-09… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 16:03:17) * Bundling exception for agg in mapnik - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/279 (spot, 16:09:03) * ACTION: Asked clarifying questions (spot, 16:16:20) * New Python Macros for Easier Packaging - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/281 (spot, 16:16:32) * ACTION: %python_default_filter approved - (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:19:48) * Bundling exception for gpick (lua) - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/282 (spot, 16:20:30) * ACTION: Bundling exception denied, spot is going to update lua in rawhide (+1:0, 0:0, -1:6) (spot, 16:25:42) * Specify that systemd .service .socket .timer, should not be marked executable - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/283 (spot, 16:26:22) * ACTION: rpmlint check fine, guidelines change no (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:36:56) * github source URL: improved tarball names - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/284 (spot, 16:37:18) * ACTION: url recommendation changed to $PROJECT-%{commit}.tar.gz (+1:5, 0:2, -1:0) (spot, 17:01:02) * Thanks rdieter (spot, 17:01:53) * Open Floor (spot, 17:03:10) Meeting ended at 17:07:08 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Asked clarifying questions * %python_default_filter approved - (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * Bundling exception denied, spot is going to update lua in rawhide (+1:0, 0:0, -1:6) * rpmlint check fine, guidelines change no (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * url recommendation changed to $PROJECT-%{commit}.tar.gz (+1:5, 0:2, -1:0) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * spot * Bundling exception denied, spot is going to update lua in rawhide (+1:0, 0:0, -1:6) * **UNASSIGNED** * Asked clarifying questions * %python_default_filter approved - (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * rpmlint check fine, guidelines change no (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * url recommendation changed to $PROJECT-%{commit}.tar.gz (+1:5, 0:2, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (74) * abadger1999 (29) * limburgher (27) * Rathann (14) * geppetto (13) * SmootherFrOgZ (12) * rdieter (12) * smani (8) * zodbot (3) * misc (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Bundled text-based .afm font files
by Josef Stribny 09 May '13

09 May '13

Hi all, I would like to package rubygem-prawn (PDF generator) [1, 2] for Fedora, but I am unsure about the font files that are bundled in the .gem file. There are many .afm font files which seem not to be considered as font files according to the guidelines [3] as Miroslav in the review [2] already pointed out. Is this true and is it then fine to package them normally as any other files? Or is there a special approach of bundling/packaging text-based font files like .afm? I opened an upstream issue regarding their licensing [4] and it seems to be fine for .afm files they ship (given that we include the corresponding "MustRead.html" license file). Overall I am trying to find out how to not ship them at all, but the question still remains: how to properly package text-based fonts? Thanks Josef [1] https://github.com/prawnpdf/prawn [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883437 [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#What_is_a_… [4] https://github.com/prawnpdf/prawn/issues/474

3 3

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-05-09 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 08 May '13

08 May '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-05-09 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-05-09 09:00 Thu US/Pacific 2013-05-09 12:00 Thu US/Eastern 2013-05-09 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-05-09 17:00 Thu Europe/London 2013-05-09 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris 2013-05-09 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin 2013-05-09 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-05-10 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore 2013-05-10 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong 2013-05-10 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo 2013-05-10 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = New business = #topic #279 Bundling exception for agg in mapnik .fpc 279 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/279 #topic #281 New Python Macros for Easier Packaging .fpc 281 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/281 #topic #282 Bundling exception request for gpick, about lua .fpc 282 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/282 #topic #283 specify that systemd .service, .socket, .timer, … should not be marked executable .fpc 283 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/283 #topic #284 github source URL: improved tarball names .fpc 284 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/284 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.

1 0

Lightworks video editor
by Michael Hall 06 May '13

06 May '13

The Lightworks video editor becomes available for Linux tomorrow supposedly, but only for Ubuntu according to the developers. http://www.lwks.com Lightworks is a powerful, cross-platform professional video editor that has been used to cut many big-name movies over the years. It is "sort of" open source, not really at this point. But the point is that this is a really important piece of software for anyone wanting to edit video or even full 4K movies ... current Linux video editors are buggy and unreliable, Lightworks is true professional grade. So, my question is, assuming that Lightworks is released as some kind of .deb package, how likely is it that it could be converted to .rpm? I have some basic experience building RPMs and would be up for helping with this task. Mike Hall

5 9

Fwd: [ANN] Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 released
by Mihamina Rakotomandimby 06 May '13

06 May '13

Well, Here comes a security release. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ANN] Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 released Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 12:56:17 +0200 From: jean-frederic clere <jfclere(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: Tomcat Users List <users(a)tomcat.apache.org> To: Tomcat Developers List <dev(a)tomcat.apache.org>, Tomcat Users List <users(a)tomcat.apache.org> The Apache Tomcat team announces the immediate availability of Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 stable. Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 is primarily a security and bug fix release. All users of older versions of the Tomcat 6.0 family should upgrade to 6.0.37. Note that is version has 4 zip binaries: a generic one and three bundled with Tomcat native binaries for different CPU architectures. Apache Tomcat 6.0 includes new features over Apache Tomcat 5.5, including support for the new Servlet 2.5 and JSP 2.1 specifications, a refactored clustering implementation, advanced IO features, and improvements in memory usage. Please refer to the change log for the list of changes: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/changelog.html Downloads: http://tomcat.apache.org/download-60.cgi Migration guide from Apache Tomcat 5.5.x: http://tomcat.apache.org/migration.html Thank you, -- The Apache Tomcat Team --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe(a)tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help(a)tomcat.apache.org -- RMA.

1 0

Convert 64bit DEB to RPM - dependency errors
by Michael Hall 04 May '13

04 May '13

I am attempting to repackage a DEB version of the Lightworks video editor as an RPM for Fedora 18 (x86_64). I have unpacked the DEB file and copied the contents of data.tar.gz (/usr and subdirectories) to my BUILDROOT directory. Then I created a spec file which basically just specifies package info and the %files section. The RPM builds OK but does not install due to dependency errors. The dependencies are all actually in the RPM itself, as the Lightworks DEB package includes its own versions of needed libraries in /usr/lib/lightworks. Obviously, the RPM doesn't know about this. Apparently Debian doesn't use the /usr/lib64 location for 64 bit libraries. The problem may have something to do with this, or ldconfig or similar. Adding /sbin/ldconfig to a %post section has made no difference. Putting the libraries in either /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 in the RPM also hasn't fixed the issue Any suggestions on how I can resolve this?

4 5

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Package rename breakage - wat do?
by Stephen Gallagher 03 May '13

03 May '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I accidentally replied only to the node mailing list, but this is my interpretation of the situation: On 05/02/2013 07:41 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 05/02/2013 06:55 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 02/05/13 08:38, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > >>> So, should we: 1. provide a compatibility symlink so older >>> versions of nodejs-request aren't broken at all >>> >>> 2. add Conflicts to nodejs-cookie-jar specifiying the older >>> versions of nodejs-request that it will break >>> >>> 3. do nothing; if you install only part of a single bodhi >>> update and it breaks you get to keep both pieces > > > FYI, this is not technically permissible. The packaging guidelines > require clean upgrade paths. If you need to install multiple pieces > of a Bodhi update for things to work, they need to be arranged > with Requires/Obsoletes/Conflicts appropriately so that they are > pulled in automatically. Anything else is a bug in the packaging. > >> Another option is to say that a rename of a node module is not >> what the rename guidelines call a "compatible enough replacement" >> which would mean the new package would not provide the old name, >> but would still obsolete it. > > > That's not necessarily true. If it's a one-to-one replacement > (except for the name), then I'd suggest that option 1 is the best > plan for the short term, but that we should open Bugzilla tickets > against all known packages depending on the old name to update in > their next releases. > > If just adding a symlink to make it a full replacement is enough to > do the job, that's definitely the least impact. No need to force > an update until the other package is ready for it. > > >> Any packages that depended on the old name would then need to be >> rebuilt to depend on the new name and yum would not allow one to >> be updated without the other. > >> Tom > > > _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing > list nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/nodejs > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlGCXdUACgkQeiVVYja6o6N3owCgiAMU6mbFAi7n7gcU1aqgorkX XA8AnRg1pDPe/VB+KKxochRMjAD6rZ6R =F3h3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Auto-Provides and glibc
by David Michael 02 May '13

02 May '13

Hi, Quick question: I've been cleaning up some local packages of mine, including a glibc, and noticed it's automatically adding Provides for all of the iconv modules %{libdir}/gconv/*.so. I thought I'd filter out these files as per the guidelines[1], but apparently the system glibc also provides them. No packages seem to require any of them[2]. Was this an oversight, or is there a reason to keep advertising these ~250 modules through RPM Provides? Thanks. David [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering [2] repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps `rpm -q --provides glibc | sed -n /^ANSI/,/^VISC/p`

1 0

rpm pre/post script order
by Farkas Levente 02 May '13

02 May '13

hi, after we carefully examine this wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets?rd=Packaging/Scr… still don't understand how rpm works (or the wiki is wrong). suppose we've got a package pkg with this in the spec: %pre . /usr/share/pkg/foo pkg_pre %post . /usr/share/pkg/foo pkg_post where pkg_pre and pkg_post are shell functions in the /usr/share/pkg/foo shell script file. pkg-1.0 has this function: pkg_pre { echo "pre-1.0"; } pkg_post { echo "post-1.0"; } while pkg-2.0: pkg_pre { echo "pre-2.0"; } pkg_post { echo "post-2.0"; } questions 1: if i install pkg-1.0 will it echo pre-1.0? if yes how can it be possible since the file /usr/share/pkg/foo only installed in step 3 which is after step 2 (%pre of new package)? questions 2: when i upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0 according to the above wiki step 2. it should have to echo pre-2.0 or pre-1.0? since the already installed /usr/share/pkg/foo is 1.0? but (after we test it) we got pre-2.0. why? so what is the truth here and how can i run any kind of script or file installed by 1.0 during the update process to 2.0? the only way seems to %pre of the new package since step 3 install the new file (ie. overwrite all old file), so all rpm scripts of the old packages runs after the new files have been already installed. thanks. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

3 3

Package rename breakage - wat do?
by T.C. Hollingsworth 02 May '13

02 May '13

Someone recently experienced a little breakage related to a package rename, and I'm not sure about the best strategy to resolve it. Upstream finally got around to unbundling a cookie handling library from two unrelated npm packages (tobi and request). We had previously split it off in Fedora before, but needed to rename the package and move it into its final home, so the directory under /usr/lib/node_modules changed. While I shipped an updated nodejs-request along with the new nodejs-cookie-jar package in the same Bodhi update, it's possible to update to nodejs-cookie-jar (which Obsolotes/Provides the old unbundled package) without updating nodejs-request. This will of course will break request since it looks for it under the old, temporary name. So, should we: 1. provide a compatibility symlink so older versions of nodejs-request aren't broken at all 2. add Conflicts to nodejs-cookie-jar specifiying the older versions of nodejs-request that it will break 3. do nothing; if you install only part of a single bodhi update and it breaks you get to keep both pieces Both 1 or 2 are ugly in their own way, and 3 might be technically correct but doesn't seem very nice, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks in advance for suggestions! -T.C.

2 1

using the tilde in tarball versions
by Daniel Pocock 01 May '13

01 May '13

Hi, I've had a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734802 and I understand that tildes are supported by new versions of RPM, but not by Fedora infrastructure I'm currently trying to prepare an upstream project to build tarballs and I would like to use tildes in the version number of the test tarballs and distribute them through the upstream web site. They won't be uploaded to Fedora until a real release (without any tilde) is tagged. Users will manually rpmbuild packages from the tarballs. Is it considered OK to use the tilde in this manner? I presume that if a user downloads such a tarball to an older system, they will have issues with it but anybody using F18+ will be OK? Regards, Daniel

4 6

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-05-01 16:00 - 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 01 May '13

01 May '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 16:02:50 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-05-01/fpc.2013-05-01… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 16:04:30) * Schedule (spot, 16:06:28) * Revision to Haskell Guidelines - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/194 (spot, 16:08:27) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell has been reworked to drop the "section spanning" macros (spot, 16:08:51) * ACTION: Haskell Draft (with templates merged into guidelines) approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:13:57) * soft-static uid/gid for sgeadmin - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/274 (spot, 16:16:14) * ACTION: Soft-static UID/GID request was not approved (+1:4, 0:1, -1:4) (spot, 16:32:43) * Bundling libxdiff in libgit2 (and git) - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/276 (spot, 16:44:36) * Next week meeting time (spot, 16:52:11) * ACTION: Meeting Time moved to Thursday at 1600 UTC (spot, 16:57:31) Meeting ended at 16:59:12 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Haskell Draft (with templates merged into guidelines) approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Soft-static UID/GID request was not approved (+1:4, 0:1, -1:4) * Meeting Time moved to Thursday at 1600 UTC Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * Haskell Draft (with templates merged into guidelines) approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Soft-static UID/GID request was not approved (+1:4, 0:1, -1:4) * Meeting Time moved to Thursday at 1600 UTC People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (62) * tibbs (33) * limburgher (24) * geppetto (22) * abadger1999 (21) * Rathann (17) * SmootherFrOgZ (10) * racor (6) * rdieter (4) * zodbot (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging May 2013