packaging October 2008

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

42 participants
25 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Re: [Fedora-packaging] time for a review-oh-matic?
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 06 Oct '08

06 Oct '08

That's a great suggestion, Chris! I feel Fedora needs this and it would certainly make a good project. Jens

1 0

time for a review-oh-matic?
by Chris Weyl 03 Oct '08

03 Oct '08

So, building on the spirited debate going on with respect to a suggested review template, is it time for a review-oh-matic type service? Many of the things we do for reviews are the same. Check it builds in mock (koji scratch), check the srpm sources against upstream, look @ rpmlint, look at the file lists, etc, etc... Wouldn't it make all our lives to have a simple little tool that a packager could submit a srpm for review to. It could then, say (and off the top of my head): 1) extract the spec, and push it + the srpm somewhere 2) file a review bug 2) kick off a koji scratch build 3) post a link to the build, success/failure, build logs (a la the FTBFS overlord) ==> success, pull the built rpms, and post to the review bug: * rpmlint, requires/provides * md5/sha1 of srpm provided source against upstream * a partial template, good bad, etc. Provisions could be made for dependencies -- e.g. pass blocking review bug; won't try to do any of the koji bits until the blocking bug(s) is closed. As the review process goes on, new srpms could be submitted against the same review and have the same automatic bits run. This certainly isn't intended to automatically review and approve packages, and wouldn't be an excuse for reviewers to just rubber stamp. But it certainly could make the process a little less painful and more reliable by consistently automating those bits that it's feasible to. -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia

3 3

Procedure for renaming a package?
by Timothy Selivanow 02 Oct '08

02 Oct '08

Since I have to do some updates to my (only, <sigh>) package, I'd also like to take the opportunity to change its name to something that fits the python naming guidelines better. Currently it is called 'pysvn', and I'd like to change it to 'python-pysvn'. Is there a special procedure for that, e.g. fill out some forms in triplicate, mail them to some P.O. Box in Indiana, wait 3-6 weeks, promise my unborn first child to a suspicious gnome-like old man, etc... Or is it just request the new package, and put in the obsoletes and virtual provides in the new spec? Thanks.

4 3

Broken links to initscript guidelines on Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
by Todd Zullinger 02 Oct '08

02 Oct '08

It seems the links to the initscripts guidelines are broken on the ScriptletSnippets page. If someone with write privs has a moment, perhaps they could be fixed? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Initscripts_Conv… -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The worst thing about history is that every time it repeats itself, the price goes up. -- Pillar

2 1

Question about how libgcj-devel requires zlib
by Bruno Wolff III 01 Oct '08

01 Oct '08

While playing with custom repos I noticed that libgcj-devel requires a file from zlib-devel that isn't explicitly provided. In a mixed x86_86 / i386 environmentment this requires looking at the file lists to see that libgcj-devel-4.3.2-4.i386 needs zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386 and that zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.x86_64 isn't good enough. I am not sure if this is actually a bug though and if so, which package is at fault. I was hoping to get some guidance here on whether or not this is something I should bugzilla.

9 21

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging October 2008