packaging March 2026

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
4 discussions

general question about mock build sizes in koji
by Marius Schwarz 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Hi, i have doubts if i will sort of damage koji & the stable repo later, because to fully build the project, it will take up to 40 GB per full-build. The massive data from the vosk voice models is causing this. At the beginning it will be maybe 3 GB , but later, when more laguagues are supported, i'm afraid it will really have 40 GB per fullbuild. Lucky for us, vosk next to never changes the models ;) What do you think, can i pump those into koji, considering that 40GB is per release per architecture , could go up to 400 GB total ( worst case ). I think advice is needed, how to keep that small. My idea: Is it possible to stop koji from building the same model over and over again? It's just a big pile of data, which will be unique for any release & arch. best regards, Marius Schwarz

3 17

Empty %files file...???
by Marius Schwarz 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Hi, i just run into a suspicose error message? Provides: vosk-model-large-de = 0.21-1 vosk-model-large-de(x86-64) = 0.21-1 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Processing files: vosk-model-large-de-debugsource-0.21-1.x86_64 RPM build errors: error: Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/vosk-model-large-de-0.21-build/vosk-model-large-de-0.21/debugsourcefiles.list Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/vosk-model-large-de-0.21-build/vosk-model-large-de-0.21/debugsourcefiles.list Finish: rpmbuild vosk-model-large-de-0.21-1.src.rpm Finish: build phase for vosk-model-large-de-0.21-1.src.rpm ERROR: Exception(/usr/src/fedora/pva-model-de-large/vosk-model-large-de-0.21-1.src.rpm) Config(fedora-42-x86_64) 1 minutes 11 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /usr/src/fedora/pva-model-de-large/results_vosk-model-large-de/0.21/1 INFO: Cleaning up build root ('cleanup_on_failure=True') Start: clean chroot Finish: clean chroot ERROR: Command failed: of course the %files section is not empty and the named files does not exist: %files %license LICENSE-2.0.txt %license AUTHOR /usr/share/pva/vosk-model-large-de-0.21 /etc/pva/conf.d/21-model-german-large.conf Any ideas, what error i'm facing here? @Kevin: I will try to let the big file download from a server. maybe thats faster :D best regards, Marius Schwarz

2 2

RFC: Forge organization for FPC and some packaging-related tools?
by Fabio Valentini 02 Mar '26

02 Mar '26

Hello packagers, There's some tools maintained on pagure.io (rpmdevtools, fedora-review, ...) that don't neatly fit into any SIGs responsibilities. And on the other hand, the Packaging Committee will also need to move the Packaging Guidelines repo from pagure.io at some point. So ... maybe these two things actually fit together - in a "packaging" org on forge.fedoraproject.org? Especially fedora-review is clearly Packaging Guidelines related, so it would fit well with FPC stuff IMO. One thing that would need to be figured out is how to set up the permission structure for the org though, but that could probably be worked out too. What do you think? Fabio

3 5

Handling configuration changes without drop-in support
by Daria Guy 01 Mar '26

01 Mar '26

Hi, I am packaging a server (foo) whose main configuration file under /etc is marked as %config(noreplace). I also have another package (bar) that provides functionality for the server and requires adding a loadmodule directive to foo’s main configuration in order to work. In this case, using a configuration drop-in file is not viable because it can lead to incorrect configuration processing and may prevent the server from starting in certain scenarios. What would be considered an acceptable approach under the Fedora Packaging Guidelines? Would it be permissible for foo or bar to use RPM triggers to add and remove a clearly defined block in foo’s configuration file? Additionally, would the answer differ if bar were packaged as a subpackage of foo rather than as a separate package? Thanks, Daria

2 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging March 2026