packaging December 2009

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

22 participants
12 discussions

Request for Guideline Clarification
by Rich Mattes 06 Jan '10

06 Jan '10

Hi all, I've been gathering bits and pieces of information regarding the packaging of shared libraries for a while now. As I understand it: - Normal .so libraries with versioned filenames go into the base package for a program when they exist - Unversioned .so libraries go into the -devel package -- If there are no versioned libraries for a program, should a versioned library be added or should the unversioned .so file be included in the base package? - Libraries which are used by other programs at runtime should be versioned, and in %{_libdir} -- Are there exceptions to this? When is it appropriate to leverage subdirectories and /etc/ld.so.conf.d/? - Libraries which are plugins to one specific program, and are dlopened by that program, do not need a versioned filename. They should go in their own subdierctory in %{_libdir} (e.g. /usr/lib/gstreamer-0.10) -- If packaged as seperate plugins, they should be in packages called packagename-plugins-pluginname, or something similar - All shared library filenames should begin with lib A lot of this isn't in the packaging guidelines, I think if these points could be clarified and included in the guidelines it would help to answer a lot of questions. Thanks, Rich

4 4

Clarification of Static Libraries packaging guidelines
by Michael Schwendt 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

$ yum list \*-static | wc -l 115 $ yum list \*-devel-static | wc -l 8 $ yum list \*-static | grep -v devel | wc -l 108 Perhaps I only have a nit-picky day, but https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Librar… clearly mentions *-static as in foo-static - and not foo-devel-static. Could this part of the guidelines be clarified, please? Related to this ambiguity in the naming guidelines, it's kind of pointless if some packages start creating -static subpackages, which provide a virtual -devel *and* a virtual -devel-static package in addition to a shared library base package. Effectively, it implies that another package could "BuildRequires: libfoo-devel" for _static_ linking even if a shared library is available. This is exactly what the old guidelines wanted to avoid (by separating -devel and -static subpackages).

4 6

PHP Guidelines
by Remi Collet 19 Dec '09

19 Dec '09

Hi, Last draft https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP have been approved by FPC, but not change on official page ? I'd like to add a new change PEAR Packages from a non standard channel/repository A PEAR package MUST have: BuildRequires: php-channel(channelname) BuildRequires: php-pear(PEAR) Requires: php-pear(PEAR) -Requires(post): %{__pear} -Requires(postun): %{__pear} +Requires(post): php-channel(channelname) +Requires(postun): php-channel(channelname) Requires: php-channel(channelname) Provides: php-pear(channelname/foo) = %{version} This will solve issue with "channel" package uninstalled before pear package (postun scriptlet will fail) Remi.

1 0

how to check on upgrade rpm
by Léon Keijser 17 Dec '09

17 Dec '09

Hi, I'm making a package of a webapp that consists mainly of php and image files. When installing the package for the first time, an '/install' directory is copied. The user accesses the webapp for the first time, configures it and has to remove the install directory for the webapp to function properly. But when doing an upgrade of the package it's not supposed to install the 'install' directory again, as the webapp will recognize the presence of the directory and fails to function afterwards. There are a number of ways on how to approach this, but what is the best method? I thought about placing these lines in the %install section: % define my_home /var/www/html/packagename if ! [ -d %{my_home} ]; then install -m 755 -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{my_home}/install %define fresh_install 1 fi Then in the %files section: %if %{fresh_install} %dir %{my_home}/install %endif But that doesn't seem to work. -- Léon

2 2

Revised Emacs add-on guidelines
by Jonathan Underwood 14 Dec '09

14 Dec '09

Dear All, We've recently added some macro definitions under /etc/rpm/macros.[x]emacs to simplify add on packaging for (X)Emacs. The main point being that we no longer use the pkg-config way of finding directory locations etc at add-on package build time, which removes all the boiler plate stufff that was being added to every add on package. A new draft of the guidelines is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EmacsPackagingRevised Comments welcome! Best wishes, Jonathan

3 9

New packager
by rootoutcast＠hushmail.com 11 Dec '09

11 Dec '09

Hi I am new to fedora packaging, I have followed the wiki as fare as setting up a fedora and bugzlla account and submitting my package. I am still unapproved for the packager group and was wondering how long the process usually takes? The reason is I uploaded the spec file and the Source rpm to rapid share and the links have a 90 day time limit, I'm concerned about the links expiring before my submission is looked at. Thanks Joey Schofield

2 1

Submission: Httpd module mod_proxy_html (updated)
by Philip Prindeville 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

I have this building on FC11 (updated) and running. Seems to work fine. Just need someone to commit it. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452636 $ rpmlint ../../SPECS/mod_proxy_html.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ Updated the bug with new attachments (version 3.1.2).

1 0

file permissions, guidelines, rpmlint
by John Dennis 08 Dec '09

08 Dec '09

O.K. so apparently my understanding of sane file/directory permissions seems to quite divergent from rpmlint's. So I went to both the Fedora Packaging Guildelines and FHS in a attempt to resolve the discrepancy and discovered both the Guildlines and FHS offer virtually no information. * Is there a reference which states what file/directory permissions should be and a rationale? * Should rpmlint really be emitting warnings and errors for items not in the guidelines? (not just about file/directory but a number of other issues which frankly seems dubious). If rpmlint and the guidelines are divergent then should rpmlint be a recommended tool during package review? -- John Dennis <jdennis(a)redhat.com> Looking to carve out IT costs? www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/

7 7

New to the packaging list
by rootoutcast＠hushmail.com 07 Dec '09

07 Dec '09

I I am trying to right a .spec file for checkinstall I'm following the directions on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHow To I run rpmbuild -ba checkinstall.spec and get RPM build errors: File /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SOURCES is smaller than 13 bytes Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.4SyjIO (%prep) my spec file is below Name: checkinstall Version: 1.6.1 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Installs a compiled program from the program's source directory Group: Development/System License: GPLv2 URL: http://www.asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/index.php Source0: http://www.asic- linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/files/source/checkinstall-1.6.1.tgz/ BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}- %{release}-XXXXXX) BuildRequires: make Requires: make install %description checkinstall will create a Slackware, RPM or Debian compatible package and install it using your distribution's standard package administration utilities. %prep %setup -q %build %configure make %{?_smp_mflags} %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT this is my first packaging attempt any help would be appreciated Thanks

3 2

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Nov 24, 2009 - 1600 UTC
by Tom Callaway 05 Dec '09

05 Dec '09

The Fedora Packaging Committee will have its next meeting on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 1600 UTC, in #fedora-meeting. Here is the tentative agenda: * pkgconfig autorequires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires * Revised Emacs add-on guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EmacsPackagingRevised * man-pages guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Varekova/man-pages/missing-man-pages * Python3 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python3 A reminder: If you have something that you want to get onto the FPC's agenda, the procedure is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedu… Thanks, ~spot

8 17

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging December 2009