packaging July 2005

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

24 participants
10 discussions

packages which add user accounts: is fedora-usermgmt the way?
by Matthew Miller 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

Is there an official policy for what packages that add users for their processes to run as ought to do? I notice the recent clamav package still uses fedora-usrmgmt, but I can't find any reference to that in the current wiki, and that package still has the obsolete fedora.us wiki as its URL. What's the Right Thing here? -- Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> Current office temperature: 77 degrees Fahrenheit.

17 80

updating versions policy
by Michael A. Peters 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

I know that with shared libraries, it generally is not a good idea to push an update that involves versioning a shared library because the user may have software their system that is linked against the older shared library, but is there a general policy about other software? One of the packages I maintain in Extras is likely to be named as a sourceforge project of the month. The upstream developer is working overtime to finish implementing some things before that happens. The package is gourmet (PyGTK recipe manager) and absolutely nothing depends upon it - and I'm thinking that when he has these things finished, that might be a good time to update the package in Extras. Since it is not a package which is designed to have anything else depend on it, I'm assuming there is not a problem with a version update in Extras? Is that the case? The project is under fairly rapid development but I don't intend to package every little update simply because most of them don't add anything worth an update imho, but I think the update he is planning (after testing) is will be worth pushing an update.

3 3

Using %{dist} for conditional compilation
by Orion Poplawski 01 Aug '05

01 Aug '05

Is it kosher to use the %{dist} tag for conditional compilation? The shift from g77 to gfortran in FC3->FC4 has led to the need to compile packages differently for the two distributions. -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 Colorado Research Associates/NWRA FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301 http://www.co-ra.com

9 15

Multiline %defines
by Ralf Corsepius 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

Hi, Is there a portable (portable across different versions of rpm) way to override specify defines which span across several lines, from inside of a spec file? Background: I am trying to override __os_install_post from inside of a spec file, similar to this: .. %define __os_install_post \ ./brp-custom-compress \ ./brp-custom-strip \ %{nil} .. This seems to work on rpm-4.4.x (FC4), but seems to fail with rpm-4.0.x (rh7.3): # rpmbuild tmp.spec .... error: Macro %__os_install_post has empty body error: line 55: Unknown tag: ./brp-compress \ AFAIS, rpm-4.0.x chokes on the line continuation char. Ralf

2 2

Building src.rpm's outside of mock/mach
by Michael A. Peters 16 Jul '05

16 Jul '05

I'm all for building rpm's inside mach/mock because it avoids unintended dependencies (IE you build sox outside of mock, and have lame-devel and libmad-devel on your system, the resulting sox rpm will be linked against them) But what about cases where building outside of mock results in a build error, should that be considered a packaging error? The question came about as result of working on a gstreamer-plugins add-on package. If make install is used in the spec file, it works fine when built inside mock because the necessary devel packages for core plugins are not there. But when the same src.rpm is rebuilt on a user system, it may result in a build error because make install will potentially build plugins that aren't intended to be packaged. Is it a packaging error if a src.rpm can only be expected to reliably build inside mock/mach? If it is a packaging error, what would be the best course of action? Some solutions include manually installing what you DO want to package (what I have been doing), perhaps a bunch of configure switches telling configure not to build all of the plugins you don't intend to package, or telling rpm to ignore unpackaged files.

3 2

Where to install examples to?
by Ralf Corsepius 10 Jul '05

10 Jul '05

Hi, I am observing packages in FE installing examples/demos to /usr/bin. Do people agree upon this to be good packaging practice or not? IMO, it is not, because * This gradually fills up /usr/bin. * Many such examples/demos are semi-functional or less and have never been designed to be used by the public. I'd recommend to install examples/demos to either /usr/lib/<package>/ or even to /usr/share/doc/<package> Opinions, comments? Ralf

5 8

example kernel-module package
by Thorsten Leemhuis 09 Jul '05

09 Jul '05

Hi guys, sorry, I was mostly away the last two days so you had to fight with kernel-modules alone. I'll try to catch up and reply where I think it's needed. Anyway, I created a example package with kernel-modules for ndiswrapper to play a bit with the discussed scheme. It I maintain ndiswrapper (and some other kernel-module-packages) already for livna. I just chooesed it for this example cause it's small, builds fast and needs a userspace-program and a kernel-module. I followed the example in the wiki and some posts on this list. I split the package in a userland package that creates a %{name}-kmsrc.rpm that is used by the kernel-module-package as source. Something like this would be neat package like nvidia als ati drivers where a single srpm is quite big if you want to rebuild only the kernel-module (yes, it seems a lot of users of livna users do that). Find the specs and SRPMS at http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/MISC.fdr/kernel-module-example/ Comments? -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>

8 37

OpenAFS kernel-module package
by Jack Neely 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Folks, I've whipped up some new OpenAFS packages based on some of what we have discussed and proposed regarding kernel module packages. I'm kinda suprised that Matthew hasn't beaten me to it. :-) These are a rough first attempt. I have left out the debuginfo package stuffs for a future exercise. But I invite folks to comment on them. I'll probably be working on fine tuning these tomorrow during work. After working on this for a few hours I have come to the conclusion that the method of doing kernel-module-foo-source packages is very complex. I'm a big fan of having most of the smarts be in Yum and in this case the build system rather than depend on complex magic from the packager. But I do understand the issues of having multiple similar/same SRPMS, debuginfo packages etc. What's the worst evil? *shrug* SRPMS: http://anduril.pams.ncsu.edu/~slack/SRPMS/kernel-module-openafs-source-1.3.… http://anduril.pams.ncsu.edu/~slack/SRPMS/openafs-1.3.84-6.src.rpm SPECS: http://anduril.pams.ncsu.edu/~slack/SPECS/kernel-module-openafs-source.spec http://anduril.pams.ncsu.edu/~slack/SPECS/openafs.spec Jack Neely -- Jack Neely <slack(a)quackmaster.net> Realm Linux Administration and Development PAMS Computer Operations at NC State University GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4 EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89

2 2

kver in release (was: Re: rpms/kernel-module-thinkpad/devel kernel-module-thinkpad-console.perms, NONE, 1.1 kernel-module-thinkpad.modules, NONE, 1.1 kernel-module-thinkpad.spec, 1.7, 1.8 kernel-module-thinkpad-README.Fedora, 1.1, NONE"
by Thorsten Leemhuis 02 Jul '05

02 Jul '05

Not really important, but imho important enough to send this mail: Am Samstag, den 02.07.2005, 07:28 -0400 schrieb Ville Skytta: >[...] > +Release: 2.%(echo %{kver} | tr - _) >[...] I'm still wondering if another character would be better. "_" is already used in the %{release} of the kernel -- imho it's a bit confusing. And it's not easy to convert the result or this tr"" back to the original output of "uname -r" if someone wants to do that. -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>

2 2

what about fedora?
by Adrian Chelar 02 Jul '05

02 Jul '05

What is fedora? a new linux project? Is newer than rumanian dracula linux? Sad but i need to say dracula package manager is better than fedora. RPM = bullshit in my opinion. You need to use dracula package manager to obtain new features !!! Adrian Chelar Home : iulian(a)create.ro Office : office(a)create.ro

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging July 2005