January 2023 - packaging - Fedora Mailing-Lists

Automatic virtual provides for RPM macros?

by Miro Hrončok

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

2 months, 2 weeks

4
4
0 / 0

Where are the old package versions?

by Travis Sidelinger

Packagers, Recently I needed to test to see if the new version of Wine-8.0rc4 broke my games. "dnf downgrade wine" should do the trick. Wait... # dnf list --showduplicates wine | column -t Available Packages wine.i686 7.2-1.fc36 fedora wine.x86_64 7.2-1.fc36 fedora wine.i686 8.0-0.rc4.1.fc36 updates wine.x86_64 8.0-0.rc4.1.fc36 updates Wine-7.2 is much older. But where did the previous versions (7.22) go? Why are old versions being removed from the repo? Is there another repo we can use to access all package versions? -Travis

3 months, 3 weeks

6
7
0 / 0

Are there any statistics on what proportion of Fedora packages are using rpmautospec macros?

by Anne Mulhern

Hi! I can tell that some packages are and some aren't, and that's as far as I can get. Also, I'm trying to understand how rpmautospec would help me. I grasp that the idea is to avoid manually updating the changelog and release value. But what I don't understand is how that actually improves my workflow other than dispensing w/ some minor editing. Usually, I need to run rust2rpm also, and that will tend to lay down plenty of changes, which I have to evaluate anyway. Or there's some other special handling that the spec file requires on an update. So, another question might be, who uses rpmautospec to their considerable benefit and how? Thanks, - mulhern

4 months

4
3
0 / 0

Packages without full source code: BackupPC-XS,

by Florian Weimer

Both BackupPC-XS and perl-File-RsyncP ship autoconf-compiled configure scripts, but do not include the corresponding source code. This means that Fedora currently does not ship full sources for these programs. Fedora-legal told me to report this here; they consider such Fedora policy violations out of scope for their work: Missing sources for BackupPC-XS <https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/129> Thanks, Florian

4 months

2
3
0 / 0

Re: Changes in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines

by Miro Hrončok

On 17. 01. 23 15:53, Olivier Fourdan wrote: > Hi Miro > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 8:18 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> >> […] >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Packages are told not to conditionalize Sources definitions >> (e.g. on %fedora or %rhel). >> >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_do_... >> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1163 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The example there on how to do that correctly would not work with > %autosetup though. That is exactly why the example does not use %autosetup. If you'd like to use %autosetup, you could use something like this: Patch: I-am-always-applied.patch Patch: So-am-I.patch Patch: This-patch-is-also-always-applied.patch # RHEL-only patches Patch201: This-patch-is-not-applied-on-Fedora.patch Patch202: This-patch-is-only-for-the-enterprise.patch %prep %autosetup -N <--- don't apply patches %autopatch -M 200 <--- apply patches up until 200 %if 0%{?rhel} %autopatch -m 201 <--- apply patches >= 201 %endif Or even: ... %prep %autosetup -N %autopatch %{!?rhel:-M 200} -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

4 months, 1 week

1
0
0 / 0

Changes in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines

by Miro Hrončok

Hello packagers, the Fedora Packaging Committee has been asked to send summaries of changes in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Here is my attempt to do that. Since this hasn't been done in years, this first announcement sets the boundary of what to announce somewhat arbitrarily. I will try to followup on this announcement in the future once there is something new to announce. Here are the noteworthy "recent" changes, newest to oldest (more or less): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perl packages are no longer required to have: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_versione... https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1242 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New section: Ansible Collection Packaging Guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ansible_collect... https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1201 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rust packages are no longer required to have: ExclusiveArch: %{rust_arches} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/ https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1222 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GAP packaging guidelines have been updated, packages MUST use: ExclusiveArch: %{gap_arches} (noarch) https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/GAP/ https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1211 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Packages are told not to conditionalize Sources definitions (e.g. on %fedora or %rhel). https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_do_... https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1163 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Packagers SHOULD NOT simply glob everything under a shared directory. E.g. this SHOULD NOT be used in %files: %{_bindir}/* %{_datadir}/* %{_includedir}/* %{_mandir}/* %{_docdir}/* https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1160 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Packages MUST use the SPDX license identifiers in the License tag. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel... https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Python packages SHOULD undefine macros if they need to remove some default flags from Python shebangs. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1191 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Java packages MUST use: ExclusiveArch: %{java_arches} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_architec... https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1187 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've decided to end here. If you think I've omitted something important, let me know. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

4 months, 1 week

1
0
0 / 0

Should macro packages co-own /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, require rpm or do nothing?

by Miro Hrončok

Hello packagers, I'd like some guidance wrt RPM packages installing macro files to %{rpmmacrodir} (/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d). Technically this directory is owned by rpm. So following the guidelines at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_dire... such packages should either explicitly require rpm or co-won the directory. However, our ...-macros packages don't usually do either. Should they? Or is the "this is RPM, it's always going to be there" argument stronger than the rules? Is RPM actually always guaranteed to be there? We currently have: $ repoquery --repo=rawhide -q -f '/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/*' | pkgname GConf2 Lmod MUMPS-srpm-macros adobe-mappings-cmap-devel adobe-mappings-pdf-devel ansible-packaging ansible-srpm-macros blender-rpm-macros blis-srpm-macros build-constraints-rpm-macros build2-rpm-macros clang-devel cmake-rpm-macros color-filesystem copr-frontend-devel cups-devel drupal7 drupal7-rpmbuild efi-srpm-macros emacs-common environment-modules erlang-rpm-macros fdupes fedora-gnat-project-common fedora-release-common fedora-rpm-macros ffcall-devel firewalld-filesystem folly-rpm-macros folly-srpm-macros fonts-rpm-macros fonts-srpm-macros fpc-srpm-macros g2clib-devel gap-rpm-macros generic-release-common ggz-base-libs-devel ghc-rpm-macros ghc-rpm-macros-extra ghc-srpm-macros gimp-devel gnat-srpm-macros gnustep-make go-rpm-macros go-srpm-macros grantlee-qt5-devel grass-devel hdf5-devel httpd-devel javapackages-bootstrap javapackages-common javapackages-filesystem javapackages-tools kde-apps-rpm-macros kde-filesystem kdevelop-devel kernel-rpm-macros kernel-srpm-macros keyrings-filesystem kf5-kinit-devel kf5-rpm-macros kmodtool ldc libint-devel libint2-devel liblxqt-devel libvmaf-devel lpf lua-rpm-macros lua-srpm-macros meson mingw-filesystem-base mingw32-filesystem mingw32-python3 mingw32-python3-build mingw64-filesystem mingw64-python3 mingw64-python3-build mpich-devel multilib-rpm-config musl-devel nginx-mod-devel nim-srpm-macros ninja-build nodejs-packaging ocaml-srpm-macros octave-devel openblas-srpm-macros openmpi-devel osc package-notes-srpm-macros pam perl-Future-AsyncAwait-ExtensionBuilder perl-Object-Pad-ExtensionBuilder perl-XS-Parse-Keyword-Builder perl-XS-Parse-Sublike-Builder perl-macros perl-srpm-macros pesign php-devel php-pear pkgconf polkit-qt-devel postgresql-server-devel postgresql-test-rpm-macros postgresql-upgrade-devel pyproject-rpm-macros pypy-devel pypy3.9-devel python-pyqt6-rpm-macros python-qt5-rpm-macros python-rpm-macros python-srpm-macros python2.7 python3-rpm-macros qt-devel qt5-qtbase-common qt5-qtwebengine-devel qt5-rpm-macros qt5-srpm-macros qt6-qtbase-common qt6-rpm-macros qt6-srpm-macros redhat-rpm-config redis-devel rpmautospec-rpm-macros ruby-devel rubygems-devel rust-packaging rust-srpm-macros sblim-cmpi-devel scl-utils-build scl-utils-build-helpers selinux-policy shogun-data sip sugar-toolkit-gtk3 systemd-rpm-macros systemtap-sdt-devel texlive-base typelib-srpm-macros ucrt64-filesystem urw-base35-fonts-devel vagrant vdr-devel vim-filesystem web-assets-devel yast2-devtools zig-rpm-macros Out of those, only 2 co-own the directory: javapackages-bootstrap python2.7 And only a handful requires RPM. I could think of two categories of packages installing macros to that directory: 1) packages that primarily exist to ship the macros 2) packages that ship macros in addition to their primary function I think packages from (1) should require rpm (even transitively) and packages from (2) should co-own the directory. Does that make sense? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

4 months, 1 week

4
5
0 / 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2023-01-12 17:00 UTC)

by James Antill

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2023-01-12 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2023-01-12 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2023-01-12 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2023-01-12 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2023-01-12 17:00 UTC UTC 2023-01-12 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2023-01-12 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2023-01-12 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2023-01-13 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2023-01-13 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2023-01-13 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2023-01-13 03:00 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 Pull Requests = #1201 initial Ansible Collection guidelines https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1201 #1207 Ruby: update instructions for checking out excluded tests https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1207 = Followup Issues = #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 #topic #1236 Specfile scripting .fpc 1236 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1236 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1097 Use caret in Obsoletes to simplify https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1097 #topic #pr-1207 Ruby: update instructions for checking out excluded tests https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1207 = 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.

4 months, 2 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

/etc/hosts setting in RPM spec file?

by Jun Aruga (he / him)

Is there a way to set a /etc/hosts setting below or an equivalent one in a RPM spec file? The rubygem-mysq2 RPM package's unit test needs the setting to run SSL tests in the %check process of the rubygem-mysql2.spec file. ``` $ cat /etc/hosts ... 127.0.0.1 mysql2gem.example.com ``` As a reference, here are the upstream mysql2 project's settings. https://github.com/brianmario/mysql2/blob/7f6f33a6e0bd652d5e7087edb6e5d00... https://github.com/brianmario/mysql2/blob/7f6f33a6e0bd652d5e7087edb6e5d00... Related PR on Fedora: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-mysql2/pull-request/14 Thanks for your help! -- Jun | He - Him | Timezone: UTC+1 or 2, Czech Republic See <https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/czech-republic-prague-to-utc> for the timezone.

4 months, 2 weeks

6
6
0 / 0

Python packaging guidelines example spec file

by Brad Bell

How does one run rpmbuild -ba on the the Pello example in the python packaging guidelines ? The Pello.spec file appears under the heading Example spec file at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_exampl... In Pello.spec, the following lines appear: Version: 1.0.3 URL: https://github.com/fedora-python/Pello Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/Pello-%{version}.tar.gz This indicates that the web address for the upstream source is https://github.com/fedora-python/Pello/archive/v1.0.3/Pello-1.0.3.tar.gz I placed Pello.spec in my SPECS directory, Pello-1.0.3.tar.gz in my SOURCES directory, and executed the command rmpbuild -ba SPECS/Pello.spec from the rpmbuild directory and got the following result: ... snip ... Requirement satisfied: setuptools>=42 (installed: setuptools 59.6.0) Handling wheel from build-system.requires Requirement not satisfied: wheel Exiting dependency generation pass: build backend + RPM_EC=0 ++ jobs -p + exit 0 error: Failed build dependencies: python3dist(wheel) is needed by python-pello-1.0.3-1.fc36.noarch ... Because the guidelines say pyhon3-devel needs to be list in BuildRequires, I checked that it is installed on my system: rpmbuild>sudo dnf install python3-devel ... Last metadata expiration check: 3:55:50 ago on Sat 07 Jan 2023 12:05:27 AM MST. Package python3-devel-3.10.9-1.fc36.x86_64 is already installed. Dependencies resolved. Nothing to do. Complete!

4 months, 2 weeks

4
4
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging January 2023