Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2016-01-14 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2016-01-14 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2016-01-14 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST
2016-01-14 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST
2016-01-14 17:00 Thu UTC <-
2016-01-14 17:00 Thu Europe/London <-
2016-01-14 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CET
2016-01-14 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CET
2016-01-14 22:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST
------------------new day----------------------
2016-01-15 01:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT
2016-01-15 01:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT
2016-01-15 02:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST
2016-01-15 03:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13
= Followups =
#topic #558 Application/Library distinction and package splitting
.fpc 558
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/558
#topic #566 RPM file triggers
.fpc 566
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/566
#topic #567 Packaging Python 3 applications and modules for EPEL 7+
.fpc 567
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567
= New business =
#topic #587 Node.js Guideline ExclusiveArch incorrect
.fpc 587
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/587
= 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/13
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.
8 years, 3 months
a new packaging guideline for skip-release upgrading
by Kamil Paral
Hello,
some time ago I proposed that we officially embrace skip-release upgrading when skipping a single release (e.g. F21->F23 directly, but not F21->F24). In has been discussed in this thread:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test%40lists.fedoraproject....
We gained support from QA team, system-upgrade maintainer and gnome-software maintainers. We are preparing to put new test cases and release criteria into place. However, it was proposed that we also cover this in packaging guidelines, so that it's clear even from package maintainer standpoint that this is something we want to officially support and our packages should support it. (Up until now, I felt that skip-release upgrades were never officially embraced nor discouraged, so that it was kind of a gray area with undefined behavior).
I wanted to draft up an FPC ticket and propose adding something like this into the packaging guidelines:
" It must be possible to upgrade from the latest stable version of a package in Fedora N release to the latest stable version of the package in Fedora N+2 release directly (i.e. skipping Fedora N+1 package version). All package dependencies and other metadata must be prepared for direct N -> N+2 upgrades. "
But when looking into our packaging guidelines [1], I can't find a section which this would fit into. Truth be told, I can't even find any requirement that packages must be able to perform standard N -> N+1 upgrades. There's no definition of upgrade path in there either, even though we have a Taskotron check that checks that for all proposed updates.
Have I missed something? Would it make sense to create a new section for the proposed guideline on the main packaging guidelines wiki page, or is it better to have it appended to some existing section (which one)? When doing this, should we also add the basic definition of upgrade path and standard N -> N+1 upgrading, or is it considered "obvious"? And do you have any comments, concerns or definition improvements for the new proposed guideline?
Thank you,
Kamil
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
8 years, 3 months
Packing guidelines around /usr/games
by Link Dupont
I'm packaging a game that uses scons as its build system. The default
SConstruct file puts the game binary in /usr/games/%{name}, and the
data files under /usr/share/games/%{name}. I searched the wiki for
usage guidelines around /usr/games, but couldn't find any results that
tell me whether /usr/games and /usr/share/games are recommended paths
for Fedora.
Are /usr/games and /usr/share/games the correct place for games to
install their binary and data, or should I patch the SConstruct file to
install into /usr/bin and /usr/share/%{name}?
~link
8 years, 3 months
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Commit_Revision
improvement
by Sérgio Basto
Hi,
At list for github we can remove ".tar.gz#" [1] may (or should) I update the wiki ?
-Source0: https://github.com/OWNER/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz
+Source0: https://github.com/OWNER/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz
Thanks,
--
Sérgio M. B.
8 years, 3 months
Re: python-macros review
by Orion Poplawski
On 12/30/2015 02:48 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com> wrote:
>> I've submitted a review for a separate python-macros package here:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294904
>>
>> This is what the FPC approved here
>> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567#comment:12 to be added to the Fedora
>> buildroots to provide the %python3_pkgversion macro needed for compatibility
>> with the EPEL Python3 packaging guidelines.
>>
>> It also serves the much more important goal of getting the python macros out
>> of the the individual python? packages to make it easier to update them.
>>
>
> Don't we normally name these something to the effect of
> "<name>-srpm-macros"? For example, we have "go-srpm-macros" and
> "perl-srpm-macros". Shouldn't this be named "python-srpm-macros" for
> consistency purposes?
I guess you're right, though we have a mix at the moment:
blender-rpm-macros.noarch 1:2.76-2.fc24 rawhide
erlang-rpm-macros.noarch 0.1.4-2.fc23 rawhide
ghc-rpm-macros.x86_64 1.4.15-3.fc23 rawhide
ghc-srpm-macros.noarch 1.4.2-2.fc23 rawhide
gnat-srpm-macros.noarch 2-1.fc23 rawhide
go-srpm-macros.noarch 2-3.fc24 rawhide
kde-apps-rpm-macros.noarch 6:4.14.15-3.fc24 rawhide
kernel-rpm-macros.noarch 36-1.fc24 rawhide
kf5-rpm-macros.noarch 5.17.0-2.fc24 rawhide
ocaml-srpm-macros.noarch 2-3.fc23 rawhide
perl-srpm-macros.noarch 1-17.fc23 rawhide
And some just "-macros":
perl-macros.x86_64 4:5.22.1-355.fc24 koji
python-macros.noarch 2.7.11-1.fc24 koji
python3-pkgversion-macros.noarch 1-5.fc24 koji
sip-macros.noarch 4.17-3.fc24 koji
But it does look like it is the *-srpm-macros that tend to be in the buildroot.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
8 years, 3 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2016-01-07 17:00 - 18:30
UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 17:00:56 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-01-07/fpc.2016-01-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 17:00:57)
* Schedule (geppetto, 17:16:08)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging%
40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/H4SRQRXL6URL44MXGIZ3MYGJQC7QIUWI/
(geppetto, 17:16:14)
* #584 Update to latest AppData specification (geppetto, 17:16:54)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/584 (geppetto, 17:17:00)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/admin/tracini/notification ?
(mbooth, 17:19:06)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%
3AAppData&diff=431361&oldid=413661
(tibbs|w, 17:26:48)
* LINK: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/ explains it
a bit (tomspur, 17:29:47)
* ACTION: Updated the example using info. from ticket and upstream.
(geppetto, 17:31:51)
* #585 Blanket reauth. of bootstrapping exceptions (Free Pascal
(geppetto, 17:32:17)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/585 (geppetto, 17:32:27)
* ACTION: Blanket reauth. of bootstrapping exceptions (+1:5, 0:0,
-1:0) (geppetto, 17:35:03)
* #567 Packaging Python 3 applications and modules for EPEL 7+
(geppetto, 17:36:20)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567 (geppetto, 17:36:29)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294904 is my
current review (orionp, 17:38:00)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/580#comment:6 (tibbs|w,
18:05:52)
* #580 [Clarification] Policy on auto-generated code (geppetto,
18:13:53)
* ACTION: new section: Use of pregenerated code (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
(geppetto, 18:19:29)
* Open floor (geppetto, 18:19:38)
Meeting ended at 18:28:58 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* Updated the example using info. from ticket and upstream.
* Blanket reauth. of bootstrapping exceptions (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
* new section: Use of pregenerated code (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* Updated the example using info. from ticket and upstream.
* Blanket reauth. of bootstrapping exceptions (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
* new section: Use of pregenerated code (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* tibbs|w (84)
* geppetto (74)
* orionp (36)
* tomspur (23)
* zodbot (13)
* mbooth (11)
* Rathann (11)
* tibbs (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
8 years, 3 months
Adding an alias name to my package
by David Juran
Hello
Would anyone know how to make a package findable under an alternative
name in the gnome-software application?
I'm maintaining the azureus package in Fedora. The upstream project
changed name to Vuze ages ago but as name-changes are a bit of a pain
in fedora, I've kept the original name for the package.
I've added a "Provides" in the spec-file, so the package is findable by
dnf under the new name (dnf search vuze) but additionally, I'd like the
gnome-software application to find it when searching for Vuze. Would
anyone know how I go about doing this?
/David
8 years, 3 months
Questions about epel7 branch
by Brad Bell
Recently, epel7 was added to the pkgdb
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/cppad/
Would someone please explain the following:
1. Why is one branch called el6 and the next epel7 instead of el7 ?
2. Why is there a .csvignore file in the initial epel7 branch ?
3. Should I just copy or git merge files from the master branch to
epel7 ?
After executing
git show-ref
part of what I get is
ab35867f883d9fa854d3f1ab78e90f4741fa9610 refs/heads/el6
d9722dc5ceb9438715a9f519729556b1a80ad9ed refs/heads/epel7
18cc6ccdeadc7c611ed33c0cd1c25cd375a3cd53 refs/heads/f22
18cc6ccdeadc7c611ed33c0cd1c25cd375a3cd53 refs/heads/f23
18cc6ccdeadc7c611ed33c0cd1c25cd375a3cd53 refs/heads/master
After executing
fedpkg switch-branch master
ls -a -l
part of what I get is
-rw-rw-r--. 1 bradbell bradbell 20481 Jan 2 15:48 cppad.spec
drwxrwxr-x. 8 bradbell bradbell 4096 Jan 2 15:48 .git
-rw-rw-r--. 1 bradbell bradbell 536 Jan 2 15:48 .gitignore
drwxrwxr-x. 3 bradbell bradbell 4096 Jan 1 08:09 results_cppad
-rw-rw-r--. 1 bradbell bradbell 59 Jan 2 15:48 sources
After executing
fedpkg switch-branch epel7
ls -a -l
part of what I get is
-rw-rw-r--. 1 bradbell bradbell 0 Jan 2 15:50 .cvsignore
drwxrwxr-x. 8 bradbell bradbell 4096 Jan 2 15:50 .git
-rw-rw-r--. 1 bradbell bradbell 770 Jan 2 15:50 Makefile
drwxrwxr-x. 3 bradbell bradbell 4096 Jan 1 08:09 results_cppad
-rw-rw-r--. 1 bradbell bradbell 0 Jan 2 15:50 sources
8 years, 3 months
