devel August 2015

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

200 participants
263 discussions

How to make .spec Requires for libXXX.so.VER
by Jan Kratochvil 29 Sep '15

29 Sep '15

Hi, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249325 GDB requires some library libXXX.so.3 by dlopen(). Therefore it is not found by rpm automatic requires/provides from DT_NEEDED. Therefore one has to add the libXXX.so.3 by specific BuildRequires and Requires to the .spec file. libXXX is librpm here but that is just a coincidence, it could be libz for example. (1) How to make a dependency on librpm.so.7? librpm.so.7 is in rpm-libs-4.12.90-3.fc24.x86_64 which --provides: librpm.so.7()(64bit) librpmio.so.7()(64bit) rpm-libs = 4.12.90-3.fc24 rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.12.90-3.fc24 So there is no easy way to Requires: rpm-libs = NVRA I do not see which V introduced / deprecates .so library version 7. So I would like to: Requires: librpm.so.7 But that does not work as I need there the '()(64bit)' suffix. %{?_isa} suffix does not work, that is '(x86-64)' and not '()(64bit)'. I could %ifarch explicitly all 64-bit Fedora archs to append '()(64bit)' for them but isn't there some better way how to generate the '()(64bit)' suffix? (2) The other possibility does work: BuildRequires: %{_libdir}/librpm.so.7 But https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Dependencies says Whenever possible you should avoid file dependencies as they slow down dependency resolution and require the package manager to download file lists in addition to to regular dependency information. >From what I remember at least yum did not need the 'filelists' index for /usr/bin/ files. Is it still valid today and also for dnf? And is 'filelists' required for /usr/lib{,64}/ or not? I think Packaging Guidelines could list these few directories - at least /usr/bin/ - for safe file dependencies. Thanks, Jan

6 14

A backup service using fuse, sqlite and btrfs.
by Stef Bon 27 Sep '15

27 Sep '15

Hi, I would like to put the project I'm working on in the spotlight. It's fuse-backup, a service which gives users the possibilty to enable backups for folders, and select what is to be backupped based upon mimetype. Fuse-backup does not backup every time a file has changed, but after every session. (actually at the start of the next session). Screenshots (and the rest of the project) you'll find at: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fusebackup/ The screenshots are of a simple qt gui, which interfaces with the fuse-backup daemon using the fuse fs. This fuse gives information about which backups a user has, what has been backupped and the versions per file. It uses FUSE, sqlite and btrfs. Earlier I spoke Michael Meeks about writing a tool for showing the differences between office files. Fuse-backup provides very easy access to ealier versions, now it would be very nice to have a tool which will enable the user to view the differences between versions in a smart way. The new toolkit for LibreOffice LibreOfficeKit offers tools for that, like showing a page as an image (generate a pixmap from RGB). Further I'm looking at Dolhin to create a plugin to support fuse-backup. I would be awfully nice to show the different versions of a file with a simple mouseclick in Dolphin, and then show a menu per version when rightclicking, and showing the differences with the current version would be one of the choices. So this is also work to be done. The project is still in alpha. Any comments? Stef

2 2

[Base] Base Design WG agenda meeting August, 31st 2015 14:15 UTC on #fedora-meeting-2
by Harald Hoyer 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

Agenda: - Fedora.Base - RHEL.Base - Flock recap - Ring 1 vs Ring 0 - define the minimal install (continued) - define the docker base image (continued) - minimal disk image for importing into libvirt (continued) - generic installer? (continued) - Open Floor Please add items by replying to this mail.

17 48

F21: fedora-easy-karma / bodhi / updates testing / kf5-baloo
by Reindl Harald 13 Sep '15

13 Sep '15

besdies that updates-testing is broken for days now it becomes boring the fedora-easy-karma still don't work bodhi2 at https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ is unusable for testers because the search field seeks for users, no idea how to get to the current firefox build for give karama as example __________________________________________ Getting list of installed packages... Waiting for Bodhi for a list of packages in updates-testing (F21)... Cannot query Bodhi: 1000 is greater than maximum value 100 python-fedora-0.5.5-2.fc21.noarch __________________________________________ Error: Package: 1:libreoffice-calc-4.3.7.2-9.fc21.x86_64 (installed) Requires: libwps-0.3.so.3()(64bit) Removing: libwps-0.3.1-1.fc21.x86_64 (installed) libwps-0.3.so.3()(64bit) Updated By: libwps-0.4.1-1.fc21.x86_64 (updates-testing) ~libwps-0.4.so.4()(64bit) Available: libwps-0.3.0-3.fc21.x86_64 (fedora) libwps-0.3.so.3()(64bit) Error: Package: 1:libreoffice-writer-4.3.7.2-9.fc21.x86_64 (installed) Requires: libwps-0.3.so.3()(64bit) Removing: libwps-0.3.1-1.fc21.x86_64 (installed) libwps-0.3.so.3()(64bit) Updated By: libwps-0.4.1-1.fc21.x86_64 (updates-testing) ~libwps-0.4.so.4()(64bit) Available: libwps-0.3.0-3.fc21.x86_64 (fedora) libwps-0.3.so.3()(64bit) __________________________________________ *what is that* yum --skip-broken update tries "kf5-baloo replacing baloo.x86_64 4.14.3-1.fc21" and pulls a ton of KF5 dependencies which is a bad joke if the only installed QT/KDE5 application is "sddm" well, and even if you say yes, the deps are horrible broken and since my systems are minimal-setups i doubt that anybody got that installed Transaction check error: file /usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/kfilemetadata.mo from install of kf5-kfilemetadata-5.13.0-1.fc21.x86_64 conflicts with file from package kde-l10n-German-4.14.3-1.fc21.noarch

4 4

Symbol `SSL_ImplementedCiphers' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking
by Josh Stone 04 Sep '15

04 Sep '15

I update from nss-3.19.3-1.0.fc22.x86_64 to nss-3.20.0-1.0.fc22.x86_64 this morning, and now I get this stderr output: $ /usr/bin/stap -V >/dev/null /usr/bin/stap: Symbol `SSL_ImplementedCiphers' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking The message comes from ld.so; that symbol comes from libssl3.so. Should I be worried about this? Do we need a rebuild of all nss-dependent packages to clear this message?

6 11

Looking for new maintainer: ownCloud (Fedora / EPEL)
by Adam Williamson 04 Sep '15

04 Sep '15

Hi, folks. So I've been maintaining ownCloud for the last little while. Unfortunately I sat down today to try again and update the package to the latest upstream (8.1.1), and somewhere in the second hour of insanely stupid PHP autoloader code, I just snapped. I can't take this crap any more. I only personally really needed OC for calendar and contact sync anyway, so I've set up Radicale instead: it's written in Python and it doesn't have a ridiculous forest of bundled crap. Given that there are dozens of other things I could be spending my time on that I'd find more rewarding, I'm just not willing to do any further major updates of the Fedora / EPEL ownCloud package, I'm sorry. I'm willing to keep the current major versions (8.x in everything but EPEL 6, 7.x in EPEL 6) updated until they go EOL, at which point if no-one else is interested, I will orphan the package. If anyone would like to take on the work of doing the 8.1 upgrade and maintaining the package in future, please do let me know and I'll happily transfer it over. To do a decent job, though, you are going to *need* to know or be willing to learn quite a lot of intimate and incredibly annoying details about things like PHP class loading and how Composer works. If you don't, for instance, know what it means for unbundling purposes when a PHP library specifies 'classmap' as the autoload mechanism in its composer.json file, and you're not willing to spend your time learning, you probably don't want to own this package. :) I'm very sorry to folks who are using it, but I really can't deal with the crap any more. If all you need is calendar/contact sync, there are easier ways. Check out Radicale or something like it. Upstream does of course provide ownCloud packages in an OBS repo. They do not follow Fedora web app packaging policies or unbundling rules, and probably don't work very well with SELinux. Switching from the Fedora/EPEL packages to the OBS ones is likely to require moving various things around and config file editing and stuff. I'm not going to document that, sorry. If anyone else does, though, that'd be great. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

11 16

Attempting to contact unresponsive maintainer - dvossel
by Kevin Fenzi 04 Sep '15

04 Sep '15

Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for this package maintainer is no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive maintainer policy to find out if they are still interested in maintaining their packages (and if so, have them update their email addresses in FAS). If they're not interested in maintaining or we can't locate them I'll have FESCo orphan the packages so that others can take them over. If you have a way to contact this maintainer, please let them know that we'd appreciate knowing what to do with their packages. Thanks! * dvossel - former email: dvossel(a)redhat.com Point of contact: resource-agents -- Open Source HA Reusable Cluster Resource Scripts ( master f23 f22 f21 ) Co-maintainer: libqb -- An IPC library for high performance servers ( master f23 f22 f21 epel7 ) sbd -- Storage-based death ( master f23 f22 f21 ) kevin

2 2

GNOME 3.17.91 megaupdate
by Kalev Lember 04 Sep '15

04 Sep '15

Hi all, Just a quick heads up that it's GNOME 3.17.91 release this week and we are still using the f23-gnome side tag for builds - please use 'fedpkg build --target f23-gnome' if you are helping with builds. I'll take care of submitting them all in a single bodhi update ticket later this week. Thanks, Kalev

1 1

F23 System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging
by Jan Kurik 02 Sep '15

02 Sep '15

= Proposed System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Glibc_locale_subpackaging Change owner(s): * Mike Fabian <mfabian At redhat DOT com> * Siddhesh Poyarekar <spoyarek AT redhat DOT com> * Carlos O’Donell <codonell AT redhat DOT com> This change should make it possible to install or uninstall locales individually. == Detailed Description == Currently the file /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive contains all locales and is thus huge (103MB). For small systems (and containers) it would be useful to be able to install only a small number of locales. Recently we made it possible to install a small number of locales by supplying the rpm-macro “_install_langs”, for example rpm -i -D _install_langs="en:de_DE" glibc-common.rpm will install all English locales and all German locales which start with “de_DE”, rpm -i -D _install_langs="en_US.utf8" glibc-common.rpm will install only the en_US.utf8 locale, rpm -i -D _install_langs="POSIX" glibc-common.rpm will install nothing (but the POSIX/C is still available because it is builtin into glibc). But this approach works only during an Anaconda based install when Anaconda supplies the _install_langs rpm-macro. When glibc is updated later, the _install_langs macro will not be supplied on the command line during the update and the default value “all” of “_install_langs” from /usr/lib/rpm/macros will be used and all locales come back during an update. Therefore, this solution is far from perfect. It should be made possible to install and uninstall locales individually, for example by having a separate package for the locales for each language. Installing such a package would add these locales to locale-archive, uninstalling it would remove them. Anaconda then needs to be changed to handle such language packages. == Scope == * Proposal owners: 1. Figure out the best approach to to install/uninstall locales 2. Make sure that locales added manually by the user are not destroyed (currently they are lost when glibc is updated) * Other developers: Anaconda needs to be made aware of the new approach to handle installation/uninstallation of locales * Release engineering: I am not sure whether this has affects release engineering, probably the packages in the install image change when parts are split out of glibc-common. * Policies and guidelines: No, this change does not require updates to policies and guidelines. * Trademark approval: not needed for this Change -- Jan Kuřík _______________________________________________ devel-announce mailing list devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce

9 13

Packaging golang for secondary architectures, go-srpm-macros
by Jan Chaloupka 02 Sep '15

02 Sep '15

Hi, at the moment golang packages are built only on primary architectures (defined by %go_arches macro) due to golang compiler architecture support. For secondary architectures gcc-go is available. In order to provide an easy way for packagers to package golang projects for secondary architectures as well, go-srpm-macros packages is introduced. It provides basic macros that can be used within spec files. Currently golang package ships /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.golang file, which defines %gopath and %go_arches macros. As secondary architectures has no golang package these macros are not available. Thus I am proposing to move these macros to go-srpm-macros package and provide additional ones: # Define arches for PA and SA %golang_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} %gccgo_arches %{power64} s390x aarch64 %go_arches %{golang_arches} %{gccgo_arches} # Where to set GOPATH for builds %gopath %{_datadir}/gocode # Minimal version of gcc providing gcc-go %gccgo_min_vers 5.0.0 # Define commands for building %golang_build go build -compiler gc %gcc_go_build go build -compiler gccgo -gccgoflags "$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" # Define commands for testing %golang_test go test -compiler gc %gcc_go_test go test -compiler gccgo -gccgoflags "$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" Meaning of %golang_arches and %gccgo_arches is obvious. %go_arches is extended for secondary architectures. Spec files using %go_arches macros will not get touched by this change as it takes effect only on secondary architectures. %golang_build, resp. %golang_test and %gcc_go_build, resp. %gcc_go_test macros provides an easy way to run go build, resp. go test commands for golang and gcc-go compiler without typing the minimal list of options. The reason to define %golang_build and %gcc_go_build instead of %go_build for both compilers is to cover a case when gcc-go and golang have a different set of options. So packagers are aware of which compiler/command they use for building. The same holds for the 'go test' command. Recommended use in spec file: 1) To choose the correct compiler: %ifarch %{golang_arches} BuildRequires: golang %else BuildRequires: gcc-go >= %{gccgo_min_vers} %endif 2) To choose the correct command for building and testing: %ifarch %{golang_arches} %{golang_build} -o bin/binary %{import_path}/binary %{golang_test} %{import_path}/binary %else %{gcc_go_build} -o bin/binary %{import_path}/binary %{gcc_go_test} %{import_path}/binary %endif At the same time packaging guidelines for golang will be extended to provide information about secondary architectures. What are the steps to accomplish this task? 1) finish review of go-srpm-macros [1] 2) add go-srpm-macros as a run-time dependency of redhat-rpm-config for f21-f23 and el6 3) remove /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.golang from golang 4) update packaging guidelines I will fill all necessary bugs/tickets if needed and update packaging guidelines. Florian, I would like to make go-srpm-macros a run-time dependency of redhat-rpm-config. Thus I believe go-srpm-macros needs an extra caution so it does not break minimal buildroot. Can you check out the macros.go-srpm file in the package [1]? The file define only one line macros, no %if nor %ifarch. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241156 Any feedback and questions are welcomed and appreciated. Thanks to all involved in helping us. Kind Regards Jan Chaloupka

5 13

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel August 2015