packaging June 2018

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
14 discussions

Fixing wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines
by Jun Aruga 23 Oct '18

23 Oct '18

Dear Packagers who are using Boostrapping logic for the cyclical dependency Need your help to fix wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines. This mail is long. Sorry for that in advance. You may be building the cyclical dependency packages by using a variable such as _with_bootstrap, need_bootstrap, bootstrap, enable_test, and etc.. For example, you may build with below ways for that, if you will use mock command. ``` $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --with=bootstrap *.src.rpm => _with_bootstrap can be used as --with=bootstrap $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define '_with_bootstrap 1' *.src.rpm $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define 'need_bootstrap 1' *.src.rpm $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define 'enable_test 1' *.src.rpm ... ``` Here is a document page to unify the Bootstrap logic. You may know it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bootstrapping However I found that below part in the page is wrong. ``` %{!?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1} ``` Because .. If _with_bootstrap is not set from outside, bootstrap is 1 => bootstrap is True/Enabled if _with_bootstrap is set as 1 from outside, bootstrap's value is not set. => the value is empty if it is not declared in advance. It's a kind of 0. bootstrap is False/Disabled. This situation is opposite meaning of "_with_bootstrap". Below way not using negative operator `!?` is correct. ``` %{?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1} ``` The reason why I wrote this here is I found that had already been reported 2 years ago for packaging committee, however it was closed without fixing. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/509 I am not sure that why it is not admitted. You may feel that it does not matter because you may edit the Bootstrapping logic in the RPM spec file manually. But in my case, I am one of the people who use the Bootsrapping logic actively. There are 89 RPM packages that constitutes Ruby on Rails 5.0. To build Ruby on Rails 5.0 completely from scratch, I have to build the packages total 103 times considering bootstrap. I am trying to build those packages automatically by a tool [1] with a configuration file [2] for Ruby on Rails. It is important to fix it due to that. Fortunately today another guy Vit created new ticket for that. So, if YOU like this proposal, please comment in below page of the ticket or reply here. It is helpful for us to move this huge rock. I really want to fix it. "I like it." comment please. => https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/684 Thank you for your help. [1] https://github.com/sclorg/rpm-list-builder [2] https://github.com/sclorg/rhscl-rebuild-recipes/blob/master/ror.yml Kind regards, Jun Aruga

10 27

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-06-27 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 28 Jun '18

28 Jun '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-06-27 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-06-28 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-06-28 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-06-28 16:00 UTC UTC 2018-06-28 17:00 BST Europe/London 2018-06-28 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2018-06-28 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2018-06-28 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-06-29 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-06-29 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-06-29 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-06-29 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followups = #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #665 SSLCertificateHandling policy update .fpc 695 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/695 #topic #714 let's kill file deps! .fpc 714 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #726 Review for SELinux Independent Policy packaging Draft .fpc 726 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/726 #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config .fpc 743 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743 = New business = #topic #740 Add "%python_enable_dependency_generator" onto Python .fpc 740 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/740 #topic #759 Don't require editing of Source0 in Python spec template .fpc 759 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/759 #topic #774 Reword "Addon Packages" a bit .fpc 774 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/774 #topic #775 Allow to have %{?suse_version} condition in spec file .fpc 775 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/775 #topic #777 Improved text for default services page .fpc 777 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/777 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can: * Reply to this e-mail * File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee * E-mail me directly * 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.

2 1

Issues with blender dependencies
by Philipp Bartsch 27 Jun '18

27 Jun '18

Hey, First up, I am not sure if this is the right place for reports like this. If there is a better place please let me know. Blender seems to to be linked to jemalloc but it is not installed as a dependency. ``` $ # installing blender $ sudo dnf install blender [...] $ blender blender: error while loading shared libraries: libjemalloc.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory $ ldd $(which blender) | grep "not found" libjemalloc.so.2 => not found $ # installing missing jemalloc $ sudo dnf install jemalloc [...] $ # blender now starts without issues $ blender ``` Btw. I am running Fedora 28 on x86_64. - Phil

3 3

Packaging Static Libraries *please reconsider*
by Gene Hightower 26 Jun '18

26 Jun '18

From <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Librar…> == Packaging Static Libraries == “Packages including libraries SHOULD exclude static libs as far as possible (eg by configuring with --disable-static). Applications linking against libraries SHOULD link against shared libraries not static versions.” * I would like to suggest this advice be reconsidered * The second guideline seems fine; a packaged application (executable) SHOULD link against the shared/dynamic version of a system library. But this second guideline does not need the first; and I can see little reason for the first. Since static libraries should end up in their own seperate *-static packages, I see very little advantage in excluding them. Linkers have always (since the dawn of dynamic linking) preferred shared/dynamic libraries over static versions. The mere presence of a libfoo.a file along side a libfoo.so file will have no effect on executables created. * Compelling reason for static libraries * The ability for a developer using a Fedora system to create static executables, or to link one or more libraries statically in an otherwise dynamic executable, is a very useful capability. There are many advantages to static executables. Maybe this is all TL;DR so see: <https://digilicious.com/static.html>

1 0

Re: DRAFT: Change to Systemd Packaging Guidelines - Was Re: Services that shouldn't be started in the first place
by Gerald B. Cox 25 Jun '18

25 Jun '18

FESCo has decided to review this topic at their next meeting. I will hold off submitting another draft pending the results of that discussion. https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1918 On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox(a)bzb.us> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> > wrote: > >> >>>>> "GBC" == Gerald B Cox <gbcox(a)bzb.us> writes: >> >> To me this doesn't make much sense in the context in which you have put >> it. The existing hardware activation section is just this paragraph: >> ... >> I don't disagree with the idea behind what you're proposing, but the >> hardware activation section is quite the wrong place to put it. >> >> It seems to me that a far more appropriate place would be in the >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices document >> > ... > > Completely agree. I'll make the changes and repost another draft via > email. > > Thanks for you help Jason! > >

1 1

DRAFT: Change to Systemd Packaging Guidelines - Was Re: Services that shouldn't be started in the first place
by Gerald B. Cox 21 Jun '18

21 Jun '18

I opened a fecso ticket here: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1918 and it was suggested it would be better handled via FPC - so I've created a draft. I would appreciate feedback before I created the FPC ticket. Adding the following paragraph to the Hardware Activation section: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Gbcox/Packaging:Systemd#Hardware_activa… =========== Enabling of a service by default must not be done unless provisions have been made to ensure the required hardware actually exists; otherwise the service can fail which will result in systemd entering a degraded state. This can be accomplished by utilizing the conditional functionality of systemd. If the capability to inquire about the specific condition does not exist, you must request it be created and provide the necessary criteria. If it is not possible to create a specific conditional systemd validation, you may request an exception to this guideline until such time the conditional functionality can be created. =========== Some history here: On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox(a)bzb.us> wrote: > This isn't related to a service, but is throwing out an spurious error > message. There is a patch but it hasn't made it's way > yet into the Fedora kernel: > > rt_cmos registration error: rhbz#1568276 > Basically an error is being thrown because your system doesn't have > battery backup. To their credit, it was quickly identified > and patched. We now just have to wait for the patch to be applied. > > However these: > > The mcelog.service message is associated with rhbz#1166978 > The dbxtool.service message is associated with rhbz#1508808 > The rngd.service message is associated with rhbz#1490632 > > At least for me are the result of services being enabled by default, that > should never have been enabled for my > environment. > > mcelog: I am using an AMD processor. This service only applies to Intel. > dbxtool: I am not using SecureBoot. This service only applies to > machines using SecureBoot. > rngd: I am not using a machine that has a hardware RNG generator > > Again, if we are apparently so concerned about a streamlined user > experience, why are we > starting processes that aren't needed - and in fact are not appropriate > for a particular environment, > and then throwing out error messages which are spurious and confusing? > > In my case, this caused me to spend hours individually tracking down all > these error messages > to find out that there is nothing wrong with my environment. Instead the > issue is these services > are inappropriately started for EVERYBODY - and in one case have been > languishing for years. > > Last time I checked, Fedora wasn't an Intel only, SecureBoot only, > mandatory hardware RNG generator > environment. >

2 2

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-06-21 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 21 Jun '18

21 Jun '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-06-21 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-06-21 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-06-21 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-06-21 16:00 UTC UTC 2018- 06-21 17:00 BST Europe/London 2018-06-21 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2018-06-21 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2018-06-21 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-06-22 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 201 8-06-22 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-06-22 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-06-22 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followups = #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #714 let's kill file deps! .fpc 714 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #726 Review for SELinux Independent Policy packaging Draft .fpc 726 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/726 #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config .fpc 743 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee , 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.

2 1

Cleaning up old scriptlets
by Scott Talbert 18 Jun '18

18 Jun '18

I'm cleaning up some old scriptlets and have a few questions about whether these are needed anymore: 1) /sbin/ldconfig is no longer needed after installation a shared library in F28+, correct? 2) Is update-mime-database still needed after installing a file in %{_datadir}/mime/packages/ ? 3) Is 'udevadm control --reload-rules' still needed after installing a udev rules file? Thanks, Scott

4 6

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-06-14 16:00 - 16:35 UTC)
by James Antill 14 Jun '18

14 Jun '18

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:03 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-06-14/fpc.2018- 06-14-16.00.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:04) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:03:39) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor aproject.org/message/4PAJT5NW7SNYAJ7PIKGEBFJ72RGK5ONW/ (geppetto, 16:03:43) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/734 (mhroncok, 16:05:55) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/382 (mhroncok, 16:06:11) * #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects (geppetto, 16:16:11) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots lists the two permitted formats. (tibbs, 16:20:33) * Open Floor (geppetto, 16:29:33) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/723 (mhroncok, 16:30:41) Meeting ended at 16:35:39 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * tibbs (42) * geppetto (38) * mhroncok (24) * decathorpe (20) * zodbot (15) * limburgher (14) * redi (4) * ignatenkobrain (3) * mbooth (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-06-14 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 14 Jun '18

14 Jun '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-06-14 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-06-14 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-06-14 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-06-14 16:00 UTC UTC 2018-06-14 17:00 BST Europe/London 2018-06-14 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2018-06-14 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2018-06-14 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-06-15 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-06-15 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-06-15 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-06-15 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followups = #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #714 let's kill file deps! .fpc 714 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #726 Review for SELinux Independent Policy packaging Draft .fpc 726 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/726 #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config .fpc 743 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee , 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

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging June 2018