packaging October 2008

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

42 participants
25 discussions

Fontconfig rules installation guidelines change proposal
by Nicolas Mailhot 12 Oct '08

12 Oct '08

Hi all, I've queued the following small guideline change proposal for FPC consideration: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correctio… Please add comments, reactions and corrections in the wiki. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: rakarrack - alternative desktop categories
by Development discussions related to Fedora 12 Oct '08

12 Oct '08

Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > 0.2.x is now in Planet CCRMA thanks to Arnaud from IRCAM. Great if you > can/want to migrate it to Fedora! I did submit a package review that I think meets the Fedora guidelines: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455953 > I would appreciate it if you could > keep the extra categories in the desktop file, they are used to classify > audio apps in an extra menu I added to Planet CCRMA (and rakarrack would > drop out of it if they were ommited). The question you ask is a good one, and I understand where you are coming from: {ccrma .spec} ===== # desktop file categories BASE="X-Fedora Application AudioVideo" XTRA="X-Digital_Processing X-Jack" %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \ --dir %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ `for c in ${BASE} ${XTRA} ; do echo "--add-category $c " ; done` \ %{SOURCE1} ===== As I understand it, a Fedora package can use only the categories present in the freedesktop.org spec: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.desktop_file_creation http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html Can a package use it's own categories, or must they meet the standards ? If there will be many audio apps {aka ccrma} packages, it would be best to have them grouped in the same menu; the AudioVideo menu on my machine is already overflowing more than a screenful, so I think it would be good if these audio {only} apps get their own menu ? DaveT.

2 3

Packaging emacs modes: EL/F compatibility
by Michel Salim 11 Oct '08

11 Oct '08

When packaging a package that contains Emacs mode files, should the Emacs subpackage require emacs(bin) or emacs? emacs(bin) seems to be commonly used, but this is not provided by RedHat/Fedora Emacs packages until version 22; RHEL 5.2 is still on 21.4 and thus EPEL packages would have to be specially handled. So the question is: is it better to use an %ifdef for non-Fedora releases or to just depend on emacs? Thanks, -- miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS • msalim(a)cs.indiana.edu Fedora • salimma(a)fedoraproject.org MacPorts • hircus(a)macports.org

5 7

how to update the unifdef without network when compiling kernel src for x86_64 arch
by xkdcc 10 Oct '08

10 Oct '08

Hi. 1. Configuration: Fedora 6 (KERNEL-2.6-18-1.2798) 2. I don't have my NIC drivers. 3. Then I have the NIC drivers source, I need compile it with kernel source support. 4. I copy the kernel source rpm to my F6 by USB Flash Dis. But I need to use commands below: rpm -ivh KERNEL-2.6-18-1.2798.fc6.src.rpm rpmbuild -bp --target=x86_64 /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/kernel-2.6.spec Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 error: Failed build dependencies: unifdef is need by kernel-2.6-18-1.2798.x86_64 5. I got information that someone suggest me to do command: yum install unifdef but it needs connect to network. You know, I can't now withou NIC drivers! 6. What else can I do? Thank you.

2 2

app-local feature libraries, plugins
by Matt Domsch 10 Oct '08

10 Oct '08

What are the best practices for handling app-local dynamically loaded libraries? Case in point: sblim-sfcb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466183 This has a bunch of .so files, specific application features, which it calls with dlopen() as those features become used. Current packaging has these all dumped into %{_libdir}/ which seems wrong to me. IMHO they belThis ong in %{_libdir}/%{name}/, and rather than add to /etc/ld.so.conf.d/, the application should simply dlopen() them from that directory directly. It appears this is what apache does. As a follow-on, should this same mechanism be used for plugin .so libs? Does it make sense to include something about this in the guidelines? Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux

3 3

how to include rpm-specific files in the spec
by Hubert Plociniczak 10 Oct '08

10 Oct '08

Hello, I couldn't find answer to my question on any guidelines page, so I am going to ask the question on the list. The problem I have is that we have a rpm package (obviously) that uses some general tarball of the product as a source. Additionally we have rpm-specific files like .spec, init.d script, README, other scripts etc. Now the question is how should we include them in the package. I see two options: 1) include them as another source in the spec, so we will have two source tarballs 2) include rpm-specific files as a patch Are there any others? Now, under debian, the debian-specific files are included in diff.tar.gz so I was wondering if under rpm the recommended way is option 2. Thanks for help. Hubert -- [][][] Hubert Plociniczak [][] LShift Ltd [] [] www.lshift.net

3 4

The role of %{_libexecdir} for using environment-modules
by Jussi Lehtola 10 Oct '08

10 Oct '08

Hi, I'm working on a couple of packages (gromacs and gromacs3) that are going to use environment-modules since they have a lot of binaries that otherwise would go to /usr/bin and some of them have very generic names (e.g. wheel, luck and highway). This way a user can have both the new release series and the old stable series installed and decide which version to use. What is the correct place to put these (architecture dependent) binaries? Is it OK to use %{_libexecdir}/%{name} (or %{name}-%{version}) ? -- ------------------------------------------------------ Jussi Lehtola, FM, Tohtorikoulutettava Fysiikan laitos, Helsingin Yliopisto jussi.lehtola(a)helsinki.fi, p. 191 50623 ------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Jussi Lehtola, M. Sc., Doctoral Student Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland jussi.lehtola(a)helsinki.fi ------------------------------------------------------

13 36

package review template
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 07 Oct '08

07 Oct '08

Hi Packagers, A lot of package reviewers already seem to have their own templates for doing package reviews, which is fine and well. I was thinking that this could benefit more reviewers, specially those who review less frequently or are newer to reviewing, if a link to a reference review template was added to Packaging/ReviewGuidelines that anyone could make use of. I could attach mine, which is just a trimmed version of the must and should items on the above page with "[]" checkboxes but maybe some of the top reviewer may have something better or more polished. Anyway if noone else wants to "throw the first stone" I could open a draft wiki page where we can flesh it out. Jens

10 21

looking for a sponsor and review ;)
by Luca Foppiano 07 Oct '08

07 Oct '08

hi all ;-) I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but I submitted a package request review and I'm looking for a sponsor. The package is symbolic (https://fedorahosted.org/symbolic) and my request is here [1]. I think the spec file is pretty good, but I'm not sure it's perfect. Thanks in advance. Luca [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465478 -- Today is Setting Orange, the 61st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3174 You will be married within a year.

2 2

Re: [Fedora-packaging] package review template
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 06 Oct '08

06 Oct '08

Thanks for all the comments following up to the original post. Since there seems to be a number of people who think having a template would be useful, I created the following draft page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ReviewTemplate If you are an experienced reviewer, feel free to improve or change the wording of the text and to add other template items you feel are missing. It occurs to me though that it might be better just to merge this into the current http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines page, otherwise it may just become one more duplication of information, that will have to be kept in sync. So I would like to see Packaging/ReviewGuidelines formatted or presented in such a way that it could used by copy'n'paste as a template for the formal part of the review. Jens

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging October 2008