packaging December 2007

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

16 participants
11 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

Contributor License Agreement (CLA)
by Brad Bell 01 Jan '08

01 Jan '08

I would like to understand a special case with respect to the CLA. It is the case where the Fedora packager is also the copyright holder for the package being contributed. I am the original author and copyright holder for a package. That package is currently distributed with the GPLv2 license. If I sign the CLA and complete the package contribution, does this mean that the original upstream source would no longer covered by the GPLv2 license, but rather by the CLA ?

3 3

Executable "Source:"es
by Axel Thimm 30 Dec '07

30 Dec '07

Hi, maybe not an FPC question, but I'll have a go: Since F9 Sources in the CVS "lost" their permission bit. For example the nx specfile has | Source11: nxfind-provides.sh | | %define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 | %define __find_provides %{SOURCE11} a classical approach when one needs to extend/alter the default automatic dependency calculations. How can I teach CVS/koji that my Source11 should please get its execution bit back on? I could mess around in the specfile with chmod on the sources in the %sourcedir or try to be a bit cleaner by copying around the script and messing with its permissions there, but I think that's all not really clean and a bad workaround in general confusing anyone reading through the specfile (or trying to maintain it ;) Now the FPC question: We had agreed that sources should be either 0644 or 0755, did this change for F9 and later? If not is this something to report on another list? Which one? Bugzilla perhaps against koji? If yes, would this be worth while sending out to fedora-devel-announce? Merry Xmas and enjoy the new year everyone! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

2 2

Package content question
by Richard Fearn 20 Dec '07

20 Dec '07

Hello, I've just been reading the "Code Vs Content" section of the "Packaging Guidelines" document: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines There is a list of content which is permissable, but in that list it says "Example files... are not considered content". Does this mean that example files aren't content and shouldn't be included, or does it mean that they're code rather than content and can be included? (php-pdb includes various sample files as part of its documentation, and I'm unsure whether they can be included or not.) Thanks Richard Fearn

2 2

Correct name for php-pdb package?
by Richard Fearn 20 Dec '07

20 Dec '07

Hi, I have a quick question about package naming. I'd like to package php-pdb, which is a PHP library for manipulating Palm OS databases: http://php-pdb.sourceforge.net/ Since the name already starts with "php-", I'm not sure what the package should be called - "php-pdb" or "php-php-pdb". I did notice that the package for PHP-IDN is called php-idn, so I suspect I should call my package "php-pdb". Is that correct? Thanks, Richard Fearn

2 1

Procedures question
by Brad Bell 19 Dec '07

19 Dec '07

Perhaps this is not the proper list for the question below. If so, would you please direct me to the proper place. I am new to Fedora packaging and am trying to work through the details for getting a package into the Fedora distribution. As per the instructions on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join I followed the steps: "Read the Guidlines", "Create a Bugzilla Accoun"t, "Join the important Mailing Lists", "Read Other Submissions", "Make a Package", "Upload Your package", "Create Your Review Request". Now I am "Watching for Feedback", but do not seem to have gotten any; see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=416761 Did I make some mistake in the steps above that is causing the request to be ignored ?

2 1

Next FPC meeting: 2008-01-08?
by Jason L Tibbitts III 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

The next FPC meeting would normally fall on new year's day, 2008-01-01, which is not a good date for many, and one week before is obviously out for most folks. So the current proposal is for January eighth, 2008-01-08. Current votes on #fedora-meeting are: racor: 08/01 would be fine with me tibbs: So +1 for January 8th, 2008-01-08. abadger1999: +1 lutter: +1 If anyone else has an opinion, please weigh in. - J<

3 2

Heads up: tomcat6 package into Fedora 9
by Fernando Nasser 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Hi guys, We will be working on importing JPackage.org Tomcat 6 RPM into Fedora 9 (will be submitted as a new package). I'd like to keep the tomcat5 package around as well, as some people may want to use the old version still. The packages have versioned names so they can be installed in parallel. Would that be OK? Regards to all, Fernando

3 6

Python Eggs addition: example%files
by Toshio Kuratomi 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Hi all, I've created a new section for the Python Eggs Guidelines with examples of how to deal with the fact that Fedora 9 creates .egg-info for distutils and Fedora < 9 does not. Comments appreciated, I'd like to see these discussed and voted on for addition to Packaging/Python/Eggs at Tuesday's meeting. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PythonEggs -Toshio

3 2

Best way of patching sources for changed libbeagle?
by Sebastian Vahl 10 Dec '07

10 Dec '07

I need some help with the new libbeagle-0.3.0. This one is listed in pkg-config with "libbeagle-1.0". The configure script of kerry (and also brasero and yelp) are explicit checking for "libbeagle-0.0". Upstream hasn't catched up the new beagle, yet, so I have to figure out what is the best way of preparing my package (kerry) for the new libbeagle version. And here I need some help because I'm not very familiar with configure scripts. :) My attempt here is to avoid a patch and change the libbeagle version with sed: > %build > unset QTDIR || : ; . /etc/profile.d/qt.sh > export QTLIB=${QTDIR}/lib QTINC=${QTDIR}/include > > # libbeagle-version is now 0.1 > sed -i > 's/LIBBEAGLE_PACKAGES="libbeagle-0.0"/LIBBEAGLE_PACKAGES="libbeagle-1.0"/' > configure > > %configure --disable-rpath --disable-debug > make %{?_smp_mflags} A scratch build seems to be fine: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=285293 But I think there would be better options to to this. Sebastian

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging December 2007