packaging May 2021

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
11 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

Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
by Otto Urpelainen 04 Jul '21

04 Jul '21

Hello packagers, I have problems interpreting Packaging Guidelines section File and Directory Ownership [1] for icons application place in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor. I ran into this during package review for dosbox-x [2], but I think the issue is more general than that, because many applications add their icons to the (default, fallback) hicolor theme. So the package places application's icon to %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/dosbox-x.svg. From the guidelines, it is clear that for all directories in the chain, one of the following has to be true: 1. Package owns the directory 2. A dependency package owns the directory 3. _filesystem_, _man_ or "other explicitly created -filesystem package" own the directory Item 3 takes care of %{_datadir}/icons part, because that is included in _filesystem_. The remainder hicolor/scalable/apps is unclear for me. Method 1 could be used. But there is also package _hicolor-icon-theme_. Is that package an "explicitly created -filesystem package", so method 3 could be used? That would feel natural, because hicolor is the fallback theme that must exist according to freedesktop.org specification. Related but separate question about the guidelines: Section Unowned Directories:Inaccessible Directories [3] discusses a problem that is only relevant to Fedora < 9 and RHEL < 5.3. It does not really contain any information that is relevant today. Should that section simply be removed? Otto [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_direct… [2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639 [3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectorie…

4 8

Who owns "Policy for encouraging comaintainers of packages"?
by Otto Urpelainen 27 May '21

27 May '21

Hello, I am currently working on porting Package Maintainers documentation from wiki to docs.fedoraproject.org. While selecting the pages that will be moved over to the new location, I found the "Policy for encouraging comaintaioners of packages" [1]. It seems to be relevant and thus should be moved over. What I was left wondering at is, if it should actually be owner by either the Packaging Committee or FESCo? These currently own similar documents like the Packaging Guidelines nad the Non-responsive Maintainer Policy. I can submit the pull request to move that document to the correct location at docs.fp.o, but I should first understand what is the correct location. Any thoughts? Otto [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_encouraging_comaintainers_of_pack…

3 2

Cancel this weeks meeting due to freenode problems
by James Antill 26 May '21

26 May '21

If you aren't aware freenode seems to be in the process of imploding, as of today a lot of the staff have resigned. For more information see: https://kline.sh/ ... or check Fedora people's twitter etc. I'm guessing that the meeting will be on a different network next week. I'll put a header with what I know in the schedule, but hopefully we'll all find out what's going on before then.

3 3

Does whiteboard field for package reviews still exist?
by Otto Urpelainen 26 May '21

26 May '21

Hello Packagers, Wiki page Package Review Process [1] mentions Bugzilla "whiteboard field" multiple times. I have completed some reviews now, but I have never set any whiteboard values, or even seen such field. Am I correct to assume that it is not used anymore and could be removed from the process description? [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Otto

2 2

Rust application package naming
by Richard W.M. Jones 13 May '21

13 May '21

"rust-sevctl" was added to Fedora recently. It contains a single binary (/usr/bin/sevctl). I think the fact that it happens to have been written in the Rust language is immaterial and the package should have been called "sevctl". Anyway the packager points me to the guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/ and with a strict reading of them, it does indeed seem that "rust-sevctl" is the required name (since the package is a "crate"). But it's not a library, so this seems ... unnecessary? We have plenty of programs written in C which aren't called c-foo. NB: I appreciate that this package has now already been added to Fedora and changing package names is a pain, so this is NOT a request to change the name of this existing package. Also this package already "Provides: sevctl" so it's not really an issue. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/

3 4

Licensing guidelines for AppStream project_license
by Otto Urpelainen 07 May '21

07 May '21

Hello packagers, During the package review of qvge [1], the following question came up: Are the any requirements placed on the contents of AppStream metadata, particularly the field project_license [2]? It feels natural that is MUST be the same (module differences in notation) as specfile License, since both have the same meaning. However, I cannot find anything in Licensing Guidelines about this. In my experience, this comes up quite often, since upstreams often have bundled dependencies or other copy-pasted code with different license than upstream's own code, yet AppStream metadata, LICENSE file, README and so only list upstream's own license. [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870 [2]: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Metadata.html#tag-… Otto

1 0

Application telemetry data
by Ian McInerney 07 May '21

07 May '21

I looked through the packaging guidelines just now to see if I could find any guidance on if it is appropriate for applications packaged in the main Fedora repos to have telemetry sent back to upstream automatically (not just crash reports, but usage telemetry of some kind), and I couldn't find anything. Has there been any decisions by FESCO/packaging committee about telemetry in apps and is it written in the policy somewhere? I am asking because just today a new PR was made to Audacity (one of the packages I help maintain in Fedora) that adds telemetry gathering: https://github.com/audacity/audacity/pull/835. It is said to be optional and starts as disabled - but the code for reporting back will still be in the package non-the-less. Thanks, -Ian

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging May 2021