packaging September 2018

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
16 discussions

obsolete JavaScript packaging guidelines
by Greg Sheremeta 03 Dec '18

03 Dec '18

Hi, This page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:JavaScript is terribly outdated. Even when it was created years ago, IMO the advice was questionable. Today, it's definitely bad advice. Modern web applications use webpack for JavaScript. With webpack, JavaScript is minified and bundled, and sometimes assets are even injected. I realize bundling libraries is bad for an old-school RPM-based application. But no one packages JavaScript into RPMs (try to find react and friends), and the page is leading to confusion on my team. To prevent confusion, acceptable options would be: either simply deleting the page, or placing a giant "don't follow this outdated advice" banner at the top. Best wishes, Greg -- GREG SHEREMETA SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER - TEAM LEAD - RHV UX Red Hat NA <https://www.redhat.com/> gshereme(a)redhat.com IRC: gshereme <https://red.ht/sig>

8 18

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

Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
by Igor Gnatenko 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

Hello everyone, We have moved packaging guidelines onto docs.fedoraproject.org[0]. If you find any error or would like to change something, don't hesitate to open ticket or submit pull request for packaging committee repo[1]. Thanks for attention! [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ [1] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee -- -Igor Gnatenko

5 4

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-09-27 16:00 - 16:50 UTC)
by James Antill 27 Sep '18

27 Sep '18

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:07 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-09-27/fpc.2018- 09-27-16.00.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:08) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:06:13) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor aproject.org/message/CLIG7B6RWI2D6LDIDIIJD345PJ2Y2RUI/ (geppetto, 16:06:15) * #795 Nice diffs in git-based guidelines (geppetto, 16:06:27) * ACTION: use Semantic Breaks for our guidelines code (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:15:08) * #667 Recommend use of systemd sandboxing directives (geppetto, 16:15:36) * ACTION: Recommend use of systemd sandboxing directives (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:34:51) * Open Floor (geppetto, 16:34:56) Meeting ended at 16:50:35 UTC. Action Items ------------ * use Semantic Breaks for our guidelines code (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * Recommend use of systemd sandboxing directives (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * use Semantic Breaks for our guidelines code (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * Recommend use of systemd sandboxing directives (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * tibbs (43) * geppetto (43) * mhroncok (22) * redi (22) * zodbot (15) * decathorpe (8) * ignatenkobrain (7) * limburgher (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-09-27 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 26 Sep '18

26 Sep '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-09-27 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-09-27 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-09-27 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-09-27 16:00 UTC UTC 2018-09-27 17:00 BST Europe/London 2018-09-27 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2018-09-27 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2018-09-27 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-09-28 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-09-28 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-09-28 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-09-28 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 #667 Recommend use of systemd sandboxing directives .fpc 667 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/667 #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #775 Allow to have %{?suse_version} condition in spec file .fpc 775 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/775 #topic #784 forbid globs for shared libraries as it conceals sonames .fpc 784 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/784 = New business = #topic #795 Nice diffs in git-based guidelines .fpc 795 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/795 = 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.

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-09-20 16:00 - 16:50 UTC)
by James Antill 20 Sep '18

20 Sep '18

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:01:34 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-09-20/fpc.2018- 09-20-16.01.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:01:42) * Open Floor (geppetto, 16:10:36) * #727 convert guidelines to git and restructured text (geppetto, 16:19:30) * LINK: https://pagure.io/fork/ignatenkobrain/packaging-committee/commits/g uidelines (ignatenkobrain__, 16:30:44) * ACTION: Nobody should touch the wiki, at this point. (geppetto, 16:46:25) Meeting ended at 16:51:12 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Nobody should touch the wiki, at this point. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * Nobody should touch the wiki, at this point. People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * ignatenkobrain__ (24) * tibbs (20) * geppetto (20) * zodbot (16) * ignatenkobrain (9) * redi (9) * bexelbie (8) * sdgathman (4) * x3mboy (4) * limburgher (3) * redit (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-09-20 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 20 Sep '18

20 Sep '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-09-20 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-09-20 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-09-20 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-09-20 16:00 UTC UTC 2018-09-20 17:00 BST Europe/London 2018-09-20 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2018-09-20 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2018-09-20 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-09-21 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-09-21 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-09-21 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-09-21 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 #665 SSLCertificateHandling policy update .fpc 665 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/665 #topic #667 Recommend use of systemd sandboxing directives .fpc 667 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/667 #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #703 Inconsistency between "General Naming" and "Case Sensitivity" .fpc 703 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/703 #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 #727 convert guidelines to git and restructured text .fpc 727 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/727 #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config .fpc 743 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743 #topic #775 Allow to have %{?suse_version} condition in spec file .fpc 775 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/775 #topic #784 forbid globs for shared libraries as it conceals sonames .fpc 784 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/784 = 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

Dynamic BuildRequires
by Nicolas Mailhot 15 Sep '18

15 Sep '18

Hi, Following some long discussions on rpm's and mock issue tracker¹, I wrote the following to permit using BuildRequires, computed from the content of the packaged archive: https://github.com/nim-nim/mock-install https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/mock-install/ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629371 A review would be appreciated Usage is pretty simple: %<-- BuildRequires: mock-install […] %prep […] # Do something to compute yourbr1 … yourbrX mock-install yourbr1 … yourbrX %<-- I intend to integrate it in the next version of Fedora Go packaging macros. I'm told the Java guys already do something similar within javapackages-tools, but it's hidden inside java-specific python packaging code, you can't really use it standalone for other kinds of packaging. Of course the utility is written in Go, so will only build on arches that support Go but *shrug* at this point I don't care, feel free to write something better if you want. The Go code is small and trivial. Regards, ¹ https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/160 -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: DNF: "There are following alternatives to this package"
by Tomas Orsava 13 Sep '18

13 Sep '18

On 09/13/2018 06:43 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 18:17 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote: >> We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries >> to install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend >> them alternative packages. These offered packages would advertise >> that they are an alternative for XYZ using a specially formatted >> Provides tag. >> >> For example, packages `python2-requests` and `python3-requests` >> would both have the following tag: >> >> Provides: alternative-for(python-requests) = %{version}- >> %{release} >> >> (Possibly via the already existing and widespread %python_provide >> macro in the Python case.) >> >> And when the user would try to install `python-requests`, dnf would >> look for packages with the relevant Provides tag and display them: >> >> # dnf install python-requests >> * There are following alternatives to this package: >> python2-requests python3-requests >> No match for argument: python-requests >> Error: Unable to find a match >> >> This would be very similar to an already existing functionality that >> searches for lowercase package names: >> >> # dnf install python3-REQUESTS >> * Maybe you meant: python3-requests >> No match for argument: python3-REQUESTS >> Error: Unable to find a match >> >> (That functionality is broken in some versions—RHBZ#1628514—so you >> might not see this result at the moment.) >> >> What are your thoughts? > It's neat, but it doesn't help catch typos, which seems like the most > probably case where I'd want such a feature. > > How about instead of a scheme based on provides, just quickly check if > a package has a "similar" name? > > Basically extend the existing check for lowercase you mention. Catching typos would be useful, and I'd certainly support that addition, but this doesn't really scratch the itch I'm trying to solve. We want to tell the user "these are exactly the alternatives available to you". Not guess, not rely on some typo resolution. We know what the alternatives are, here they are. I've talked with people working on dnf and this looks like an easy mechanism to add, and it will be more reliable for the use cases it covers. Tomas > > $ git stats > git: 'stats' is not a git command. See 'git --help'. > > The most similar command is > status > >

2 1

DNF: "There are following alternatives to this package"
by Tomas Orsava 13 Sep '18

13 Sep '18

Hi! We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries to install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend them alternative packages. These offered packages would advertise that they are an alternative for XYZ using a specially formatted Provides tag. For example, packages `python2-requests` and `python3-requests` would both have the following tag: Provides: alternative-for(python-requests) = %{version}-%{release} (Possibly via the already existing and widespread %python_provide macro in the Python case.) And when the user would try to install `python-requests`, dnf would look for packages with the relevant Provides tag and display them: # dnf install python-requests * There are following alternatives to this package: python2-requests python3-requests No match for argument: python-requests Error: Unable to find a match This would be very similar to an already existing functionality that searches for lowercase package names: # dnf install python3-REQUESTS * Maybe you meant: python3-requests No match for argument: python3-REQUESTS Error: Unable to find a match (That functionality is broken in some versions—RHBZ#1628514—so you might not see this result at the moment.) What are your thoughts? One possible addition would be to include a parameter for weight in the Provides tag, so that python3-requests could be listed as the preferred option before python2-requests. All the best, Tomas Orsava

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging September 2018