packaging October 2007

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

22 participants
13 discussions

Tcl packaging guidelines proposal
by Michael Thomas 02 Jan '08

02 Jan '08

I sent this proposal to f-m-l about a week ago to gather comments, and there were no serious disagreements with the proposal which have not yet been addressed (thanks to Tibbs and Toshio for their feedback). Basically, I want to establish a set of guidelines for packaging Tcl extensions, as we already have guidelines for other popular scripting languages. In addition to making Tcl packages more consistent with each other, it will also help work toward fixing my pet-peeve bug (bz #226893) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Tcl Please let me know if I need to do anything to help get these draft guidelines adopted. Thanks, --Wart

4 10

fortran .mod files
by Patrice Dumas 05 Dec '07

05 Dec '07

Hello, Currently there is no guideline regarding fortran 90 .mod, it seems to me that one is needed. These files are generated by gfortran when building a module. These are text files, but not intended to be read by humans. They are architecture dependent. When compiling some code that uses the module, the .mod has to be found in the include path (for example in a directory specified by -I). Where should the .mod be installed? I propose %_libdir %_libdir/include %_libdir/modules %_libdir/mod %_libdir/f90 %_includedir/%_lib %_includedir/%_lib/modules %_includedir/%_lib/mod %_includedir/%_lib/f90 (f90 may also be replaced by another meaningfull subdirectory name). This directory could be called %_fmoddir And add -I%_fmoddir in FFLAGS when compiling some code that requires the module. The optimal situation would be to have %_fmoddir defined in rpm macros and -I%_fmoddir added to default FFLAGS. So my first question is what is your advice about fortran modules directories? My second is, in case it is meaningful, what about my proposal regarding rpm macros? -- Pat

12 31

Fonts spec template validation
by Nicolas Mailhot 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

Hi all, While the current spec template in the Fonts SIG wiki (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/SpecTemplate) only documents common Fedora Fonts packaging practices, it's never been formally approved. I intend to submit it to FPC soon. If anyone on the fonts list object to part of this page or wants something clarified, please speak now Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

3 4

ltsp root directory
by Patrice Dumas 31 Oct '07

31 Oct '07

Hello, The linux terminal project needs a directory for the filesystems exported to the terminals. Upstream uses /opt/ltsp. Upstream asked the lsb/fhs, but nobody answered something definitive, and nobody said that /opt/ltsp was wrong when upstream proposed it. In fedora, I think that /opt/ltsp is not very good. I asked on devel list and people objected to /opt/ltsp, proposing /var/lib/ltsp and /srv/ltsp. (as a side note, it is in fact along /opt/ltsp5/i386 and so on and so forth but it isn't of major interest, the issue is about the directory the ltsp directory should be in). What is your recommentdation? /opt /var/lib /srv Something else? -- Pat

4 8

Metapackage guidelines
by Nicolas Mailhot 26 Oct '07

26 Oct '07

Hi all, Recently metapackages have been rearing their ugly head again, and there is some disagreement on the proper use case and limits of metapackaging: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=351571 I'd like FPC to clarify the Fedora policy on metapackages and publish this policy in the wiki Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Should /usr/share/aclocal be in filesystem?
by Orion Poplawski 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

Many packages dump their aclocal files in /usr/share/aclocal, but really don't need to require automake for normal usage. Should all of these packages also own /usr/share/aclocal, or should it get moved to filesystem? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

4 5

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Fonts spec template validation
by Nicolas Mailhot 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

Le Mer 24 octobre 2007 13:53, Patrice Dumas a écrit : > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> If anyone on the fonts list object to part of this page or wants >> something clarified, please speak now > > Maybe I am demanding too much, but I would hae liked to have > explanation on what to do for all of the different fonts, bitmap > fonts, > truetype fonts and type1 fonts (latex fonts?). There is nothing about > /etc/X11/fontpath.d/ > for example. Well nothing stops anyone from pushing a legacy font template through the Fonts SIG later (either by extending this one or by writing another). It's up to the packagers of these legacy fonts to agree in the SIG on a proposal. Right now no one wrote a legacy fonts template, so there's nothing to submit to FPC. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

2 1

server provides packaging draft
by Patrice Dumas 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

Hello, I wrote down the virtual provides for server listening on a given port at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ServerProvides for consideration by the packaging commitee. If you know about existing virtual provides like smtpdaemon or webserver, you can tell them to me such that I inspect them, even if the proposal is not accepted. -- Pat

2 2

virtual provides for local servers
by Patrice Dumas 22 Oct '07

22 Oct '07

Hello, I sent this on the devel list, nobody responded. ltsp5 requires an xdmcp server, but more than one package provides the functionnality. What about adding a virtual provides for local servers like Provides: server(xdmcp) This could also be used for smtpdaemon and webserver, which would become server(smtp) and server(web) (or server(http))? What do you think about that idea? -- Pat

2 3

rpmlint: W: strange-permission foo.init 0755
by Stepan Kasal 09 Oct '07

09 Oct '07

Hello, many packages contain executable scripts (shell, perl, etc.) In most cases, these scripts have +x set in the fedora CVS. (After a quick inspection, I see that all *.init scripts in the fedora packages which I happen to have checked out have +x set.) Please note as long as we use CVS for Fedora and the cvs://... URLs in koji, we are not able to change flags of an existing file without a rename or a server side hack. (A limitation of CVS.) I reported the problem upstream, but I was told that this feature is configurable. Could you please change the configuration for Fedora rpmlint? Thanks, Stepan Kasal

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging October 2007