packaging September 2022

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
5 discussions

license of the binary policy
by Jilayne Lovejoy 25 Mar '24

25 Mar '24

Hi Fedora legal and packaging, I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups. The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec file (as described at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelin… ) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask." As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora licensing, it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the following: 1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice? 2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be helpful? 3) should this policy be different, and if so, how? 4) any other related thoughts or observations Thanks! Jilayne

12 39

Automatic virtual provides for RPM macros?
by Miro Hrončok 10 Mar '23

10 Mar '23

Hello, today at Nest, somebody said "unfortunately, there is no way to tell what package to install to get a particular RPM macro". I think that having an RPM provides generator for "rpm-macro(__python3)" or similar should be a fairly simple exercise. Would you folks consider that useful? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

4 4

Intersection of 2 arches macros
by Miro Hrončok 06 Oct '22

06 Oct '22

Hello packaging folks. I was in need of computing an intersection of 2 arches today. Consider this: %java_arches: aarch64 ppc64le s390x x86_64 %my_arches: i686 x86_64 Plan: ExclusiveArch: <intersection of %java_arches and %my_arches> Is there some idiomatic way of doing this? I came up with: ExclusiveArch: %(comm -12 <(echo %{java_arches} | tr ' ' '\n' | sort) \ <(echo %{my_arches} | tr ' ' '\n' | sort) | tr '\n' ' ') Which I consider quite horrible. I was considering Lua to avid shelling out to nested Shell, but Lua has no easy sets, so the code would be much longer. Is there some easier way? Should there be? Something like: ExclusiveArch: %{arch_intersect %java_arches & %my_arches} Note the & that serves as a separator, otherwise the arches would be mixed and would need to be put in some kind of quotes. Alternatively, the macro names could be passed instead to avoid a need of a separator ExclusiveArch: %{arch_intersect java_arches my_arches} (Both approaches allow to intersect arbitrary number of sets.) -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

3 2

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2022-09-22 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 22 Sep '22

22 Sep '22

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2022-09-22 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2022-09-22 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2022-09-22 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2022-09-22 16:00 UTC UTC 2022-09-22 17:00 BST Europe/London 2022-09-22 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2022-09-22 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2022-09-22 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2022-09-23 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2022-09-23 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2022-09-23 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2022-09-23 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 Actions = #topic #pr-814 * mhroncok talk to authors again, having a working example might help a lot = New Issues = = Followup Issues = #topic #886 Enable BRP for detecting RPATH .fpc 886 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 #topic #1132 Mark comments as scriplets for Sources (automation) .fpc 1132 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1132 #topic #1150 request for clarification wrt. base version / compat package naming .fpc 1150 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1150 #topic #1159 Ban use of %configure in %prep .fpc 1159 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1159 #topic #1193 Clarify packaging guidelines for .NET applications .fpc 1193 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1193 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1045 WIP: Add discussion of macro names beginning with underscores. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1045 #topic #pr-1071 Overhaul the RPATH section of the guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1071 #topic #pr-1097 Use caret in Obsoletes to simplify https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1097 = 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

EPEL selinux policy
by Mukundan Ragavan 15 Sep '22

15 Sep '22

I have a packaging question - One of the packages I maintain, nextcloud-client, fails to execute in EPEL-9. It is being blocked by SELinux policy. getsebool selinuxuser_execmod is off in EL9. Is it even allowed to change SELinux rule in, for example, %post? I suspect the correct way to do this is to file a bug, correct? Thanks. -- GPG Key: E5C8BC67

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging September 2022