packaging February 2009

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

45 participants
27 discussions

Packaging guidelines for rubygems
by Jeroen van Meeuwen 09 Mar '09

09 Mar '09

Hi, I find patching rubygems (for CVEs) a pain in the ass because of the packaging guideline requirement to have the rubygem package's Source0 be the actual gem. I'd much rather work from tarballs. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip

3 4

Update request for /wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
by Michael Schwendt 07 Mar '09

07 Mar '09

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories needs an update (it's read-only). The section about "Inaccessible Directories" applies only to RPM < 4.4.2.3 according to information on fedora-devel-list, and that means Fedora < 9 if the information is correct. At least since Fedora 10, RPM sets a sane default umask, so unowned directories are created with mode 0755.

2 4

%doc killing files installed below %_defaultdocdir
by Michael Schwendt 28 Feb '09

28 Feb '09

The scenario: - tarball "make install" installs lots of documentation files in %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version/ - package %files list uses %doc attributes to place its own selection of files in our default docdir => all doc files from "make install" are lost, because %doc fills %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version/ from scratch In all earlier cases where applicable, I could convince the packager to not use %doc and instead create proper %files entries to include the files found in %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version/ -- as a bonus, rpmbuild would fail for any file not included in %files. For the first time, a packager insists on overwriting/killing the installed files with his own conflicting %doc attributes. Conclusion: It works but bears risks. It would silently kill any additional documentation files built and installed by an upgrade, but not added by the packager manually via %doc. It could also be that the %doc statements create different subdirs (e.g. ./html/ versus placing the html files directory in the pkg's docdir root) which might conflict with paths compiled into an application. What do other people think about this? -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/484933

4 4

desktop filename
by Milos Jakubicek 28 Feb '09

28 Feb '09

Hi all, what's the proper desktop filename? Is it just %{name}.desktop or fedora-%{name}.desktop or it can be both? Desktop-file-install creates fedora-%{name}.desktop, while the Review Guidelines say it must be %{name}.desktop. I mean either the Review Guidelines are wrong in this or desktop-file-install should be fixed to follow the guidelines, what do you think about it? Regards, Milos

3 2

Proposed Changes to PHP Guidelines
by Remi Collet 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

Proposed Changes to PHP Guidelines that need to be reviewed or ratified by the Fedora Packaging Comittee and FESCo : The changes https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FPHP&diff=7884… The result https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP Regards

5 5

Packaging clarification regarding bash-completion scripts
by Michel Salim 24 Feb '09

24 Feb '09

One of my package, bti, now ships a bash-completion script, which needs to be installed in /etc/bash_completion.d/ . It seems that the expectation is that installing bash-completion should automagically enable all applications that provide completion scripts, and so existing packages should own /etc/bash_completion.d (rather than depending on it). Bearing that in mind, 1. Should this be included in the guidelines? Currently, none of the use cases match: to guard against renaming, and if two unrelated packages install files to a common directory I'm proposing "3. Optional dependency. If your package has a non-essential feature that is not significant enough to split off to a separate subpackage, then you may choose not to Require: the package needed for that feature, but instead own the relevant directories." Are we still not allowing optional dependencies (suggests / recommends / hints)? Otherwise, for such features, the dependency should be suggested rather than silently ignored. 2. Some packages install files in /etc/bash_completion.d without either requiring bash-completion or owning the directory: - darcs - mercurial Depending on how this is resolved, we'd need to open bugs against them with the recommended solution. Thanks, -- miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS • msalim(a)cs.indiana.edu Fedora • salimma(a)fedoraproject.org MacPorts • hircus(a)macports.org

5 10

I wish to package some CC licensed content ...
by steve 23 Feb '09

23 Feb '09

Hi, Most of my reading these days is done on my laptop[1]. This includes both tech (docs and tutorial types) as well as non-tech books. So, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw 'diveintopython' listed in my yum search listings (I was searching for comic book readers). I like the idea of being able to 'yum install' or 'yum search', or even 'yum groupinsatall' books (or any CC content for that matter, eg: music, video ..etc). If packaging such content is encouraged, I'd gladly package most of the CC content I've accumulated. Does Fedora has a policy or guideline about these things ? regards, - steve [1] I don't think the Kindle ...or any other dedicated ebook reader for that matter, is worth the investment right now PS: Since I just subscribed to this list to ask the question above, I might as well also request someone to please review the following packages I've submitted, and sponsor me if possible. They've been languishing for some time now: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478744 -- Linux Centric Marketplace: http://www.tuxcompatible.com

11 26

Guidelines for waf usage?
by Christoph Wickert 23 Feb '09

23 Feb '09

Are there any guidelines, hints or whatever for using the waf build tool in Fedora? A search in the wiki returns nothing and looking though some specs I see they all handle way different. Regards, Christoph

2 3

Update: PackageMaintainers wiki cleanup update
by Susan Lauber 23 Feb '09

23 Feb '09

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Susan Lauber <laubersm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > Greetings to the authors/maintainers of Package Maintainer wiki pages, > > I introduced myself last week [1] and since then I have dug into the pages and set up a task table [2] > > I have already added a category to most pages so they can all be found together [3]. > If there are others or if you create a new page just add the string [[Category:Package Maintainers]] to the bottom of the page. > > The next step is renaming so that pages are easier to find in a search. It will also make the category page easier to use. I have started making suggested in the packagemaintainers.psv [4] file in the wikirename.git repo and Update: Pages were moved this past weekend (20090222) I also did a lot of work merging the old PackageMaintainers page into the Category page itself. I think it is still too long but will continue to clean it up this week. If I missed any redirects, please let me know (or just fix them). See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers The layout has *old PackageMaintainers info at the top (maintained manually) *Sub Categories (dynamically created list) *Pages in the Category (synamically created list) *Please do NOT include subdirs / in names going forward. *All links to the old page names should redirect but going forward, please try to use the new names. *To add a page to the category add [[Category:Package_Maintainers]] to the bottom of the page. *To link to the category page from within another page use the syntax [[:Category:Package_Maintainers]] (not the extra colon at the beginning) > > ***I encourage others to check the proposed names and offer additional suggestions.*** > > I would like to have this file ready for the wikibot by the end of the week (Feb 7). > Lack of response will be seen as a vote of confidence :) > > Thanks, > Susan > > [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg01545.html > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_tasks_for_Packaging_Guide_and_related_m… > [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers > [4] http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=wikirename.git;a=blob_plain;f=packagemai… > with naming instructions at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_structure > -- Susan Lauber, (RHCX, RHCA, RHCSS) Lauber System Solutions, Inc. http://www.laubersolutions.com gpg: 15AC F794 A3D9 64D1 D9CE 4C26 EFC3 11C2 BFA1 0974

1 0

%define => %global change accepted
by Toshio Kuratomi 22 Feb '09

22 Feb '09

This is an FYI to Guidelines authors past and future that FESCo and the FPC approved the change to use %global instead of %define. I don't know of anyplaces that should remain %define so I'm going to start changing everyplace on the wiki that uses %define to %global. Someone stop me if they know of an exception to this. Also, Ville, we should change the spec templates in rpmdevtools to do this as well. Would you like a bug report, patch, or you'll just take care of that? -Toshio

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging February 2009