packaging February 2007

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

40 participants
27 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

Firmware packaging, v3
by Bill Nottingham 28 Feb '07

28 Feb '07

Changes: - don't worry about group - tweak license wording - use <blah>-firmware naming Here's the updated firmware packaging proposal. Comments? Can we get this approved - there are packages that meet the existing firmware guidelines that are waiting on packging guidelines for approval. Bill

7 6

Configuration files in /usr
by Jason L Tibbitts III 28 Feb '07

28 Feb '07

Any opinions on %config files in /usr? This seems to violate all sorts of common sense surrounding shared or read only /usr, but does not seem to be mentioned in the guidelines. An example package is hwdata: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 Patrice mentions in that bug that FHS covers us here, but the guideline only asks that deviations from FHS be rationalized. - J<

3 2

Draft: Init Scripts
by Jesse Keating 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

After repeated (heated) discussions over init scripts, I wanted to guideify my thoughts (and others) on this. Can we have some discussion over this draft and vote at next meeting? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InitScripts -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora

14 52

Stopping the mandatory buildroot insanity
by Axel Thimm 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

So we voted on a new *mandatory* buildroot. By now people saw that the previous *mandatory* buildroot entered the guidelines and started blocking new packages requiring the old *mandatory* buildroot. I don't know what fesco did last week on ratifying or not the new buildroot, and either way people will think differently on any single buildroot. Perhaps buildroots are the most unimportant piece of s**t with the most polarized parties. Now who's idea was it to have a *MANDATORY* buildroot at all?</rhetoric> Most of the FPC are fed up and have often stated that the buildroot guidelines should be simple "If it works, have it". Plain and simple: Request for voting on dropping the *mandatory* from the guidelines and explicitely cast it into a *suggestion* +1 The first other five positive voters get a free beer when I meet them (we never said that committee members could not be bribed, or do we need a guideline for that? ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

4 7

FE-Legal review
by Bernard Johnson 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

I've blocked a submitted package (ntop) on FE-Legal. I'm not sure who to prod regarding "Apache License, Version 2.0, incompatible with GPL" starting at comment 46. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025#c46 If this is going to be a problem, it looks like I can remove the Apache 2 files (patch them out). I'm assuming that is sufficient and a modified tarball won't be needed. Since someone will ask: No, this is not documentation, it is javascript used by the built-in web server. Can someone who does the FE-Legal reviews take a look at this for me? Thanks.

2 1

Firmware packaging, v2
by Bill Nottingham 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

Just a minor edit to the previous proposal. I'd like the firmware section of the packaging guidelines modified to add: 1) Firmware packages are given the Group: tag of Firmware 2) The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification should be set to: "Redistributable firmware, no modification permitted" I'd write something for the PackagingDrafts, but it's locked down. Can we get this approved? Thanks in advance, Bill

14 28

Requires(post{,un}) on something in coreutils
by Andrew Overholt 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

Hi, Are Requires(post{,un}) needed for things in coreutils? Thanks, Andrew

11 20

Executable documentation
by Jason L Tibbitts III 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

For some time I've been working under the assumption that executable documentation is a bad idea. rpmlint complains when documentation generates dependencies, and these dependencies are often needless bloat. Lately I'm getting pushback when asking for a quick chmod -x of docs. The usual argument is "It's an example, it's supposed to be executable." Currently I don't see anything in the guidelines that would forbid this as long as it doesn't cause extra dependencies. So, is there concensus that allowing documentation to be executable is OK? Or is it something that should be prohibited. - J<

4 9

Wrong buildroot ...
by Axel Thimm 25 Feb '07

25 Feb '07

a) the raguments were mainly between racor and myself b) topic was decided on an IRC meeting I couldn't attend c) The summary of my arguments were given by ... racor ??? d) My arguments were not "I do it with macros, don't care about the rest" => Deliberately misquoted? e) True arguments are that obscuring the buildroot for the sake of an extremely rare corner case (several users building the same package on the same system w/o chroots) implies fixing it for far more not corner-cases like building i386 and x86_64 packages simulataneously. So the `id -nu` part is far less important than adding the target arch, but that was silently forgotten by racor I remember us waiting for racor to finish with his relocation for a couple of months before dicussing topics where he was having an active opinion and in this case it's a blitz decision in absence of one party. I'm also not amuised by racor's misquoting, be it deliberate or not. In light of the above I'd like to ask to rediscuss this. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

16 26

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging February 2007