packaging August 2020

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

7 participants
8 discussions

RPM-level auto release and changelog bumping - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal
by Ben Cotton 13 Aug '22

13 Aug '22

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpm_level_auto_release_and_changelog… == Summary == redhat-rpm-config will be updated so users of the auto framework get automated release and changelog bumping. == Owner == * Name: [[User:nim| Nicolas Mailhot]] * Email: <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> == Detailed Description == This is a system-wide change because all packages build with redhat-rpm-config, but it only concerns packages that opted to use this part of redhat-rpm-config (auto framework). The change will make those packages auto-bump and auto-changelog at the rpm level, in an infrastructure-independent way. == Benefit to Fedora == Autobumping removes a huge packager shore and makes timestamping in changelogs more reliable. == Scope == * Proposal owners: The feature is coded and works at the rpm level. Unfortunately, mock filters away the srpms containing the bump state, so it does not work in upper layers. * Other developers: The feature requires buy-in by mock developers (and probably koji developers) to lift the restrictions that block it above the rpm level. Also, it requires a mechanism to pass the user name and email that will be used in bumped changelogs (defining two variables in ~/.rpmmacros is sufficient at rpm level) * Mock issue: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/599 * Release engineering: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9567 * Policies and guidelines: maybe eventually if things work out on the technical level * FPC issue: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/998 * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) == Upgrade/compatibility impact == This is a pure build tooling update, it changes how things are built not what is built. == How To Test == A redhat-rpm-config packages with the changes and some example packages are available in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/refactoring-forge-patches-auto-… Since the mock/copr layer is currently blocking the feature, you need to install the redhat-rpm-config and forge macro packages available in this repo locally. Afterwards you can take any of the example packages in the repo and rebuild them with rpmbuild -ba to your heart content, and see the releases bump and the changelogs being updated accordingly. To get beautiful changelogs, you also need to add <pre> %buildsys_name Your name %buildsys_email Your email </pre> in ~/.rpmmacros == User Experience == N/A Packager experience change only == Dependencies == The change is a spin-off of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Patches_in_Forge_macros_-_Auto_macro… Therefore, it depends on the success of that other change and will probably need rebasing if the code in this other change evolves during the redhat-rpm-config merge. It also depends on mock / copr/ koji buy-in and changes, that may add their own requirements. == Contingency Plan == There is no contingency plan because the change will happen or not at all. == Documentation == There is as much documentation as the average redhat-rpm-config change (ie comments in the macro files themselves) == Release Notes == N/A Packager productivity change only -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

12 23

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2019-08-15 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 19 Jul '21

19 Jul '21

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2019-08-15 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2019-08-15 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2019-08-15 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2019-08-15 16:00 UTC UTC 2019-08-15 17:00 BST Europe/London 2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2019-08-15 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2019-08-16 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2019-08-16 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2019-08-16 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2019-08-16 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 #902 Cleanup & enhance spec files .fpc 902 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/902 #topic #904 Caret versioning .fpc 904 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/904 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check .fpc 909 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909 #topic #914 Automatic R runtime dependencies .fpc 914 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/914 = 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.

3 2

Odd problem with obsoletes in EPEL8
by Martin Jackson 19 Jul '21

19 Jul '21

Hello, I'm having a problem I don't understand how to fix, and I would appreciate some guidance. I'm maintaining nagios-plugins, which bundles a number of different "check" plugins and has some metapackages that include different subsets of those check plugins. In the EL 8.2 release cycle, one of the dependencies of one of those plugins was moved from EPEL into EL proper, which broke new installs of that plugin and the -all metapackage. A user filed a bug, so as a temporary workaround, I stopped building the plugin package with that dependency (nagios-plugins-ssl_validity, and had that version (nagios-plugins-2.3.3-3) obsolete the ssl_validity plugin, since leaving it around caused it to want to keep the base package in conflict with other packages that were upgrading. Now that CentOS 8.2 is released, and the dependency is available, I've issued an update (https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-70bcfe5382) that builds ssl_validity again, and also adds it back to the -all subpackage. I can upgrade it sucessfully (which installs the ssl_validity plugin again, as expected), but subsequent calls to dnf upgrade give this error: Obsoleting Packages nagios-plugins.x86_64 2.3.3-3.el8 epel nagios-plugins-ssl_validity.x86_64 2.3.3-4.el8 @epel-testing nagios-plugins 2.3.3-3 is not installed anymore, and there are no explicit Obsoletes: in the ssl_validity package. I'm not sure what needs to be done here, but whatever it is I'm willing to make the change. Also wondering if this is expected behavior. Thanks, Marty

2 1

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (YYYY-MM-DD 16:00 - 17:10 UTC)
by James Antill 27 Aug '20

27 Aug '20

====================== #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-1/2020-08-27/fpc.2020-08-2… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:03) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:06:34) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject… (geppetto, 16:06:37) * #pr-1011 Python guidelines updates (geppetto, 16:10:13) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1011 (geppetto, 16:10:13) * ACTION: Merge pr-1011 Python guidelines updates (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:19:46) * #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro (geppetto, 16:19:59) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1013 (geppetto, 16:19:59) * ACTION: Merge #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:24:01) * #pr-942 Recommend storing changelog entries in separate file. (geppetto, 16:24:43) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/942 (geppetto, 16:24:44) * ACTION: #pr-942 rejected … pretty much everyone doesn't like this approach to solving the problem. Speak to pingu, sgallagh, rpmbumpspec devs etc. (geppetto, 16:39:12) * #977 Get new members? (geppetto, 16:46:49) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/977 (geppetto, 16:46:49) * ACTION: Add carlwgeorge and King_InuYasha as new members (geppetto, 16:52:38) * Open Floor (geppetto, 16:55:17) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Members (mhroncok, 16:56:45) Meeting ended at 17:08:20 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Merge pr-1011 Python guidelines updates (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * Merge #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * #pr-942 rejected … pretty much everyone doesn't like this approach to solving the problem. Speak to pingu, sgallagh, rpmbumpspec devs etc. * Add carlwgeorge and King_InuYasha as new members Action Items, by person ----------------------- * carlwgeorge * Add carlwgeorge and King_InuYasha as new members * King_InuYasha * Add carlwgeorge and King_InuYasha as new members * sgallagh * #pr-942 rejected … pretty much everyone doesn't like this approach to solving the problem. Speak to pingu, sgallagh, rpmbumpspec devs etc. * **UNASSIGNED** * Merge pr-1011 Python guidelines updates (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * Merge #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (84) * King_InuYasha (70) * mhroncok (38) * tibbs (28) * limburgher (27) * decathorpe (24) * zodbot (15) * carlwgeorge (13) * sgallagh (11) * smooge (10) * bcotton (4) * defolos (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-08-27 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 27 Aug '20

27 Aug '20

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2020-08-27 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2020-08-27 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2020-08-27 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2020-08-27 16:00 UTC UTC 2020-08-27 17:00 BST Europe/London 2020-08-27 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2020-08-27 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2020-08-27 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2020-08-28 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2020-08-28 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2020-08-28 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2020-08-28 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followup Issues = #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check .fpc 909 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909 #topic #977 Get new members? .fpc 977 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/977 #topic #1007 Golang pkg review exception to update a lot of packages .fpc 1007 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1007 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-947 Deprecate Old Style Dependency Generators. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/947 = New Pull Requests = #topic #pr-942 Recommend storing changelog entries in separate file. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/942 #topic #pr-1011 Python guidelines updates https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1011 #topic #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1013 = 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.

3 2

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-08-20 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 20 Aug '20

20 Aug '20

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2020-08-20 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2020-08-20 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2020-08-20 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2020-08-20 16:00 UTC UTC 2020-08-20 17:00 BST Europe/London 2020-08-20 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2020-08-20 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2020-08-20 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2020-08-21 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2020-08-21 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2020-08-21 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2020-08-21 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followup Issues = #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check .fpc 909 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909 #topic #977 Get new members? .fpc 977 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/977 #topic #1007 Golang pkg review exception to update a lot of packages .fpc 1007 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1007 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-938 Add Package Review Process page. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/938 #topic #pr-947 Deprecate Old Style Dependency Generators. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/947 #topic #pr-954 Prohibit use of `rpm` command from specfile. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/954 = New Pull Requests = #topic #pr-942 Recommend storing changelog entries in separate file. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/942 #topic #pr-1011 Python guidelines updates https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1011 #topic #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1013 = 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

fedora commit notifications
by Brad Bell 08 Aug '20

08 Aug '20

It seems to me that notifications(a)fedoraproject.org is sending the wrong address for commit messages. For example, in the message below the address https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cppad/branch/master results in The requested URL was not found on the server. On 8/1/20 6:22 AM, notifications(a)fedoraproject.org wrote: > Notification time stamped 2020-08-01 13:22:16 UTC > > bradbell pushed 1 commit to rpms/cppad (master) > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cppad/branch/master > > -- > You received this message due to your preference settings at > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications/bradbell.id.fedoraproject.org/…

3 2

What is the best practice to use both gcc and clang flags macros in %check?
by Jun Aruga 05 Aug '20

05 Aug '20

In my case on rpms/simde, I want to compile the testing source in "both" gcc and clang changing the toolchain macro in the %check section. I am seeing this file to use toolchain macro. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/macros#_… > # %global toolchain clang In this case what is the best practice to use %{optflags}, %{build_cflags}, %{build_cxxflags} macros? Because after setting `%global toolchain clang` in the %check section, these macros are empty. Here is the simde.spec having both gcc and clang built test cases in the%check section. https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jaruga/rpms/simde/blob/wip/clang-flto-ft… ``` %check ... echo "=== 1.2. tests on gcc with flags ===" mkdir test/build-gcc-with-flags pushd test/build-gcc-with-flags CC=gcc CXX=g++ cmake \ -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=ON \ -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS="%{build_cflags}" \ -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="%{build_cxxflags}" \ .. ... %global toolchain clang ... echo "=== 2.2. tests on clang with flags ===" mkdir test/build-clang-with-flags pushd test/build-clang-with-flags CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake \ -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=ON \ -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS="${build_cflags}" \ # <= ${build_cflags} is empty! -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="${build_cxxflags}" \ # <= ${build_cxxflags} is empty! .. ``` The scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48755502 Thanks. -- Jun | He - His - Him

2 5

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging August 2020