udev rules update macro
by Christopher Meng
Hi,
This macro was introduced long time ago:
%udev_rules_update
a.k.a
/usr/bin/udevadm control --reload >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
I'm not sure if packages contain udev rules should run this in scriptlet?
Thanks.
--
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Noob here.
http://cicku.me
10 years, 2 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2014-02-13 17:00 - 19:00 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by abadger1999 at 17:00:13 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-13/fpc.2014-02-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (abadger1999, 17:00:21)
* #142 Request for changes to FPG (abadger1999, 17:04:55)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/142 (abadger1999,
17:04:57)
* #317 Bundled Library exception request for Gazebo (abadger1999,
17:07:43)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/317 (abadger1999,
17:07:49)
* abadger1999 to update ticket with our two ideas on how to make
gazebo-ode acceptable (abadger1999, 17:31:47)
* #389 bundled bootstrap binary exception for sbt (abadger1999,
17:32:13)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/389 (abadger1999,
17:32:32)
* Bootstrap bundling approved for sbt bundling itself. (+1:6, 0:0,
-1:0) (abadger1999, 17:41:05)
* #338 %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts
(abadger1999, 17:41:47)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 (abadger1999,
17:41:53)
* #339 software collections in Fedora (abadger1999, 17:50:49)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 (abadger1999,
17:50:54)
* LINK: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/scls/ (abadger1999, 17:51:27)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Guidelines_(draft)#General...
(abadger1999, 18:00:53)
* #387 Bundling exception: Heimdal bundles libtommath (abadger1999,
18:22:01)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/387 (abadger1999,
18:22:07)
* Temporary exception for Heimdal to bundle libtommath until Fedora 22
granted. FPC expressed a willingness to look at granting an
extension of another two releases if this one expires without the
changes being merged upstream. We'd want to see that it was still
being worked on, just not completed. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
(abadger1999, 18:37:54)
* #340 Bundling exception for nodeunit (abadger1999, 18:38:16)
* abadger1999 to ping the ticket and ask additional question
(abadger1999, 18:41:52)
* #358 Please make some autotools guidelines. (abadger1999,
18:42:44)
* #382 Go Packaging Guidelines Draft (abadger1999, 18:42:57)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/382 (abadger1999,
18:43:01)
* #385 workarounds for rpm symlink <-> directory issue
(abadger1999, 18:46:57)
* #388 recommend %autosetup over %setup (abadger1999, 18:47:41)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/388 (abadger1999,
18:47:45)
* ACTION: abadger1999 to CC panu and ask whether we need to add
buildrequires if -S VCS is used. (abadger1999, 19:01:21)
* Open floor (abadger1999, 19:02:40)
Meeting ended at 19:05:09 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* abadger1999 to CC panu and ask whether we need to add buildrequires if
-S VCS is used.
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* abadger1999
* abadger1999 to CC panu and ask whether we need to add buildrequires
if -S VCS is used.
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* abadger1999 (149)
* geppetto (62)
* Rathann (31)
* tibbs|w (28)
* RemiFedora (27)
* ktdreyer (7)
* zodbot (7)
* willb (7)
* racor (4)
* SmootherFrOgZ (3)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
10 years, 2 months
Bundled libraries in Icecat 24
by Antonio Trande
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all.
As you know, most of bundled libraries provided in Icecat source
archive are already packaged in various GNU/Linux systems, but not all
can be overlooked during the compilation, some of them are libogg,
libtheora, opus or libvorbis.
Please, I need to draw your attention or advices about how to can
resolve this issue.
FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/391
Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitterATfedoraproject.org
http://www.fedoraos.worpress.com
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: D400D6C4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=i7bu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10 years, 2 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Using SCLs for ROS releases vs simply dumping them into /opt/ros/$ros-release
by Ankur Sinha
Hi Toshio,
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 21:37 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> It all depends on the goals. If the goal is for an upstream to
> provide their own packages that you get from them to run on fedora
> then their method is probably fine.
Upstream doesn't provide rpms, only debs. Even the new bloom addition
only provides spec files as far as I can see, but I haven't tested it
out yet to be sure.
> If the goal is to submit to fedora then probably non-scl and
> installing to /usr is what's needed.
This is what we were working on till now. We picked ros-groovy as the
release we wanted to provide in Fedora and were packing it up with
various patches to make it install to /usr. However, at the time we made
this decision, SCLs weren't much in the picture and neither was the
Fedora.next system where we could have "rings" of application systems.
There wasn't anything else that could be done really.
> If the goal is to have parallel installed same versions then using
> scls may be the way to go. (But do note that there is a fair bit of
> overhead in terms of packaging to do this... but some portion of the
> effort carries over to future parallel versions.
Ideally, this is what we'd like to do, to be able to provide users with
all releases of ROS. For example, even at the lab I work in, some people
use ros-fuerte, some use ros-groovy (they have good support for the PR2
robot) and some have already moved on to ros-hydro. ROS upstream
intentionally choose to install packages into /opt/ so that users (most
of which are researchers) could run multiple releases in parallel.
I do understand that there's an overhead in maintaining multiple
releases. It's why we had chosen to pack up only one ROS release for
Fedora. However, with bloom generating spec files for us, this would
hopefully be manageable. If we don't have to modify upstream build files
to install to /usr, the work is *considerably* lessened too. (I'd expect
to have more people helping us too, since it's less work to package
stuff up if it's going into /opt straight away.)
Upstream recently informed me:
- With respect to the SCLs OSRF is now a registered LSB provider for
"ros" http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt
I think SCLs are the way to go. ROS fits in perfectly here.
https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/bloom/pull/228
--
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG
10 years, 2 months
Using SCLs for ROS releases vs simply dumping them into /opt/ros/$ros-release
by Ankur Sinha
Hi,
Bloom, the ROS generator system has recently gotten support to generate
rpms[1]. At the moment, the author is simply putting releases
into /opt/ros/$ros-release and isn't making use of SCLs. Is this OK, or
should they use SCLs?
As you'll see from the ticket, I've already pointed him to SCLs, but
considering that he's already using /opt/ros/$ros-release, and not the
system directories, I'm wondering how using SCLs would be any different?
[1] https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/bloom/pull/228
--
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG
10 years, 2 months
jquery bundling for new packages
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen
TIL that there are around a thousand packages
in Fedora that include a file named jquery.js... [1]
Anyway it is good to see efforts to tackle these kinds of problems
with the Javascript and Web Assets Guidelines. :)
I want to ask if the packaging of grunt and jquery
blocks current package reviews of packages that bundle jquery.js?
Or can they proceed for now until jquery is actually packaged in Fedora?
Jens
ps It is going to be a long cleanup process to fix all those packages with bundled files.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets#Web_application_packagers
10 years, 2 months
