packaging October 2005

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
4 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Maintainer of the Zope packages?
by Andreas Jung 25 Oct '05

25 Oct '05

Hi, how can I figure out who is in charge for building and maintaining the Zope RPMs? Andreas

3 2

perl-* package naming clarification
by Ville Skyttä 15 Oct '05

15 Oct '05

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#head-ced15ebed5e5ed94… I'd like to clarify the perl-* section of the package naming guidelines a bit. Currently, it talks about stuff like "the CPAN name of the perl module" and colons and dashes. What's "the perl module"? While this question can often be answered by deciding the "main" module in a CPAN module distribution, it's unnecessary and doesn't really match the practices already applied for a long time (for example perl-libwww-perl). Since the unit of CPAN packaging is really a CPAN module _distribution_, I think that section of the should be simplified to say that the packages should almost always be named perl-$CPANDIST. The only exception would be the rare cases where a CPAN module distribution needs to be chopped into smaller subpackages; in those cases the split ones should be called perl-$CPANDIST-$somethingdescriptive. Thoughts?

1 0

Some packaging guidelines suggestions
by Nicolas Mailhot 09 Oct '05

09 Oct '05

Hi, As Fedora Extras is speeding up we're starting to see people unearthing their pet package from RHL 6.x/7.x time and submitting it to extras. It may be a good idea to add those §s to the packaging guidelines : 1. Red Hat packaging is not always right FE has stronger packaging requirements than RHL/RHEL/FC, so blindly copying a RHL/RHEL/FC spec file may not be sufficient (especially if you rebase older releases). 2. Follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard Always follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard rules when choosing file locations. The FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) is one standard everyone seems to agree on. -- Nicolas Mailhot

2 2

Python byte-compilation
by Alan Milligan 01 Oct '05

01 Oct '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I wonder if anyone has a solution to incorrect path-names in byte-compiled python packages. In the normal dist-utils install step within the context of an rpmbuild, all paths get prepended /var/tmp/buildroot-.../usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages. This causes incorrect stack trace information to be shown. I'd taken to doing byte-compilation in the %post step to fix this, but I've discovered a much worse effect from this in that all the .pyc and pyo files thus fall outside RPM control, and when removing the package, stay in place, effectively negating the removal (although the translation units are definitely gone...) Any thoughts? Alan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDPoxdCfroLk4EZpkRAr+FAKCyb/b+q8MRn5Nf5X+x0HUCi6sHBgCcDduj dhvYknEVuoW7ziQBTEieuKw= =Dlu+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging October 2005