packaging October 2009

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

41 participants
21 discussions

Is "ascii" a valid package name?
by Martin Gieseking 22 Oct '09

22 Oct '09

Hi, according to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522988#c14 packages shouldn't get names that are general terms like "parser" or "smtp". If this is actually the case, "ascii" is probably an inappropriate name too. Should the package requested in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523799 therefore be prefixed or renamed even if "ascii" is the upstream name? Or is it OK as is, after all? Regards, Martin

5 11

new tool: rpmguard - print important differences between RPMs
by Kamil Paral 21 Oct '09

21 Oct '09

Hi, I have created a simple tool called rpmguard for checking differences between RPM packages. It is very similar to rpmdiff, but it prints only important changes, not all. Therefore it can be used every time a new package is built to easily see if something hasn’t went completely wrong. Read more on: http://kparal.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/rpmguard-print-important-differences… Any comments welcome! Kamil

2 1

.gz suffix of compressed man pages in spec files
by Martin Gieseking 18 Oct '09

18 Oct '09

Hi, during the review process of gtrayicon (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524605) the question was raised whether or not the .gz suffix of compressed manual pages should be omitted in a spec file. Since rpm automatically compresses man pages in a transparent process, I prefer to avoid appending the explicit suffix and use asterisks instead. On the other hand, adding .gz doesn't hurt as long as the compression method stays unchanged. So my question is: Is it up to the packager to either use %{_mandir}/man1/foo.1.gz or %{_mandir}/man1/foo.1*? I couldn't find any recommendation on this in the Fedora guidelines. Regards, Martin

4 4

%doc removal behavior
by Braden McDaniel 15 Oct '09

15 Oct '09

I'm trying to move some API docs to a -doc subpackage. I'd like to install these docs to /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} (which corresponds to where "make install" puts them); so I do %files doc %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/manual instead of %files doc %doc doc/manual However, I'd like to leave README and similar in the main package, where I have %files %doc README NEWS COPYING.LESSER The problem I'm running into is that in the course of packaging the docs for the main package, rpm does rm -rf %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} So, when it subsequently tries to package the docs for the -doc subpackage, the "manual" subdirectory (that was put there by "make install") has been blown away. What can I do here? Is it possible to suppress the "rm -rf" that %doc does? -- Braden McDaniel <braden(a)endoframe.com>

2 4

Is md5sum compulsion in review instead sha1sum?
by Parag Nemade 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Hi all, I want to know that is there really any compulsion on posting md5sum instead sha1sum? Review Guidelines said "Reviewers should use md5sum for this task." I have started posting sha1sum for source in package review. Regards, Parag.

9 15

Unsponsored Comaintainer?
by Rich Mattes 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

Hello, I'm new the packaging thing. I've been reading through all the rules and guidelines, and preparing some new packages to submit. I was wondering if it's possible to become a co-maintainer on an existing package if you're still unsponsored. I've spoken to the current owner of the package and he's more than happy to have me help out, but I don't know if I have to submit my own package for review and become sponsored first. Thanks, Rich Mattes

2 1

Ocaml sub-package issue
by Orion Poplawski 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

I package plplot which ships bindings for oodles of languages, among them perl and ocaml. The ocaml packaging guidelines suggest: %global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 %global __find_requires /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-requires.sh %global __find_provides /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-provides.sh to add the required ocaml Requires/Provides. However, this breaks the automatic perl (and other?) generation for the perl sub-package. How should this be handled? Is there a way to add the ocaml-find-requires/provides to the normal list of providers? Shouldn't this be done automatically by the build system? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

4 9

Small change to Beware of RPath
by Toshio Kuratomi 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

fabiand on IRC let me know that there's a minor change that could be made to the Beware of RPath section of the Guidelines to make things easier for packagers: [10:23:07] <fabiand> regarding an wiki page i can not edit: packaging:guidelines#beware_of_rpath [10:23:57] <fabiand> it should be recommended to use %{_arch} not using 32 or 64 as a suffix for files in /etc/ld.so.conf, because it is easy to use %{a_arch} but not easy to get 64 or 32 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath It would change this: {{{ If you are storing a library in a non-standard location (e.g. /usr/lib/foo/), you should include a custom config file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/. For example, if I was putting 32 bit libraries of libfoo in /usr/lib/foo, I would want to make a file called "foo32.conf" in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/, which contained the following: /usr/lib/foo Make sure that you also make a 64bit version of this file (e.g. foo64.conf) as well (unless the package is disabled for 64bit architectures, of course). }}} To this:: {{{ If you are storing a library in a non-standard location (e.g. %{_libdir}/foo/), you should include a custom config file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/. For example, if I was putting 32 bit libraries of libfoo in /usr/lib/foo and 64 bit libraries in /usr/lib64/foo I would want to make a file called "foo%{_arch}.conf" in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/, which contained the following on 32 bit: /usr/lib/foo and on 64 bit: /usr/lib64/foo That could be done in the specfile with echo %{_libdir}/foo > %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/foo%{_arch}.conf }}} If this looks like a good change I'll put it on the agenda for the next meeting. -Toshio

3 4

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 (1600 UTC)
by Tom Callaway 06 Oct '09

06 Oct '09

We should have an FPC meeting tomorrow, October 7, 2009. 1600 UTC, #fedora-meeting. Here's a rough agenda for the next meeting: * RPath Relaxation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPath_Packaging_Draft * Directory Ownership: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Notting/DirectoryDraft * Common Voice Data Framework: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CommonVoiceData As a reminder, if you want to get something on FPC's agenda, the process is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedu… Thanks in advance, ~spot

1 0

Static-only library: clarification
by Michel Alexandre Salim 02 Oct '09

02 Oct '09

I'm currently reviewing a request for Telepathy-Qt4, which currently only provides a static library: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520663 It seems to me there are two different options: - rename package to telepathy-qt4-static -- might cause administrative hassle if and when upstream enables dynamically-linked libraries - keep it as before, and just leave the main package empty. Make -devel virtually Provides: -static. Should the -doc subpackage depend on -devel? Should it be called -devel-doc or -static-doc, or just -doc? Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging October 2009