packaging June 2008

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

45 participants
35 discussions

Creating a mailinglist for discussions about Fedora and openSUSE package guidelines merging
by Hans de Goede 17 Jun '08

17 Jun '08

Hi, As you know I've been in contact with some people from openSUSE, talking about merging our package guidelines. This has lead to some discussion about rpm shortcomings which is now being discussed at rpm-maint(a)rpm.org. But another part of this discussion is merging our guidelines in general, esp. those which are not workaround for the rpm shortcomings. The openSUSE people would like to create a foo(a)opensuse.org mailinglist hosting this discussion. Are there any objections to such a list being hosted @opensuse.org? Regards, Hans

3 3

Python Virtual Provides
by Toshio Kuratomi 17 Jun '08

17 Jun '08

I've added Python Virtual Provides to the list of draft guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python There are two parts: 1) introduce virtual provides for python eggs. Copying from the way we do rubygems, this would be: Provides: pythonegg(SQLAlchemy) = %{version} Requires: pythonegg(SQLAlchemy) >= 0.3.11 2) introduce virtualprovides for normal python modules: Provides: python(sqlalchemy) = %{version} Requires: python(sqlalchemy) The motivation for this is that David Malcolm (dmalcolm) wrote a proof of concept script to show how easy it would be to extract egg dependency information as part of the rpm build process. Since this will be a far reaching change, should it be discussed on fedora-devel-list first or whether we want to do both parts? -Toshio

5 13

Re: [Fedora-packaging] New package help
by Seth Vidal 16 Jun '08

16 Jun '08

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> writes: > > PD> It would indeed be very nice to have ROOT in fedora. I'd be happy > PD> to review it. > > It should be noted that "root" is a rather ambiguous package name; I > hope that there's some reasonable name that can be used. You'd think that, alas, this is not to be so. :( I had to deal with root for years. It likes to run a daemon named 'rootd'. There's nothing that makes a sysadmin cringe up like a process named 'rootd' -sv

3 2

running testsuites of packages
by Till Maas 16 Jun '08

16 Jun '08

Hiyas, I noticed that there are sometines indications that reviewers expect to run testsuites of packages (maybe in %check?) and not running them may be a review blocker, for example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435835#c6 Can you maybe add this to the Guidelines queue? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo I will probably write something once I find the time and know what to write. Regards, Till

1 0

New package help
by Juan Carlos Cornejo 16 Jun '08

16 Jun '08

Hello all, I am preparing a package that I will submit for review, and hopefully later, for inclusion in Fedora. However, I have run into some issues which I cannot seem to resolve myself. I write to the list, hoping that some of you may be able to help me resolve the issues. First, let me tell you a little bit about the program, as its important to the issues on hand. The program is called ROOT, it is a whole analysis framework developed by CERN that is currently in use in most high energy to medium energy physics laboratories, and released under the LGPv2+. However, it is written general enough that it can be applied to other fields that require a complex analysis framework. Additionally, ROOT makes use of an internal C/C++ Interpreter, which allows for on the fly scripting of C/C++ code. So essentially, ROOT is both an analysis package, and a development package, which really leads into the next problems. 1) the C/C++ interpreter called CINT, produces, as output, DLL files. I don't know why, but this is their solution to dynamic libraries that will be shared across all supported OS's. They support Linux and many Unices, as well as Mac OS X and Windows. These DLL files are compiled by the code, so we have the source code available, though rpmlint seems to give a warning about them. And essentially, I don't know what to make of it. Here is a sample error: root-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/root/cint/include/stdcxxfunc.dll 2) Because rpmlint used to complain about header files being in a non devel package, I moved all header files to the devel package. But the devel _MUST_ be installed along with the main package, CINT requires them to be there. So if I don't create a devel package, I get hundreds of warnings for the header files. If I do create a devel package, and require this devel package from the core files, I get an error out of rpmlint. 3) This one is not really an I issue I guess, but I figured I might as well mention it now. ROOT ships with MS TrueType fonts, for some reason. So I just removed them from the package, as I have not had any problems without them on Fedora. And I use root extensively. Also, I've removed some windows DLL's that were included in the package. Also not needed for a Fedora release. I am hoping that this will not be a problem, having a tar archive that is slightly different than the upstream one. Thank you all for your advanced help. I really hope this program can be made fit to include in the distribution. --Juan Carlos Cornejo

3 2

Haskell packages
by Jason L Tibbitts III 15 Jun '08

15 Jun '08

Someone has bombed the package review queue with a bunch of GHC (Haskell) packages. Actually, they're not really actual packages, just spec files and patches that he wants us to assemble. Hopefully we can get that worked out, but the larger issue of Haskell packaging remains. I recalled that we briefly considered Haskell packaging after the last fudcon, but nothing came of it. Should we block Haskell packages like we blocked Java (and various language packages before it)? Do we have anyone that's still interested in developing Haskell guidelines? I have essentially no knowledge of Haskell, so it should be obvious that I'm not the best person to do this. However, all of the submissions were generated mechanically so I suspect that at least a portion of them could just be reviewed mechanically. I made a few comments to one of the tickets, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=451413, and hopefully the submissions will get cleaned up into a reviewable state. But we still need to cecide whether or not we want to block them until guidelines are ready. - J<

3 2

Missing FPC meeting
by Ralf Corsepius 15 Jun '08

15 Jun '08

Hi, I am on vacation next week and will likely not have access to "the net" at all. Thus, I will also likely not be able to attend next week's FPC meeting. Ralf

3 2

TeX package naming
by Jason L Tibbitts III 14 Jun '08

14 Jun '08

Way back in October FPC voted on naming TeX-related packages "tex-foo" as opposed to the old "tetex-foo" or, in recent distros, "texlive-foo". http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20071002 It doesn't seem that this was ever implemented; there's no specific "TeX" section http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines and indeed "tetex-" is specifically mentioned in the "Addon Packages (General)" section. I'd just edit this in but that document has a block at the top with a version string and I've never quite understood the protocol for updating it. - J<

2 1

New name for dhcp-3.0.5-42.fc7.src.rpm
by artem rus 12 Jun '08

12 Jun '08

Hi ! I slightly change dhcp-3.0.5-42.fc7.src.rpm and generate from it dhcp and related binary packages. I want what my packages was installed in system insted of original, but I don't know what names give to my new packages. Now i just change subversion from 42 to 99, but i am afraid, what my packages will be overwriten in future updates. I can change name to dhcp-custom... for example, but this can broke dependency. So, I have question. How I can safely install my own package what overrides system package ?

2 1

Unifying Fedora and openSuse packaging guidelines, rpmmacros and scriplets
by Hans de Goede 12 Jun '08

12 Jun '08

Hi, As a result fo some discussion on the fdo distributions list, I've been having some very interesting discussions with people from Suse, currently one of them (Stanislav Brabec) is preparing a wiki document describing the differences, and shared problems we have like gtk-update-icon-cache, etc. We would really like to continue our discussions in the open and Stanislav had discussed this with the rpm.org people, and as they are interested in large parts of this discussion they have suggesting to join rpm-maint(a)lists.rpm.org. This is not a high traffic list (about 50 mails/month), and most people there would be interested in the discussion anyway. So I would like to invite anyone interested to subscribe to rpm-maint(a)lists.rpm.org Stanislav will send a mail there to start the discussion when he has some wiki pages which describe the current differences and shared problems. Thanks & Regards, Hans

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging June 2008