packaging May 2009

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

49 participants
29 discussions

Do we allow arch specific Requires: in spec?
by Parag Nemade 20 May '09

20 May '09

Hi all, Just found one old bugzilla link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235755 which tells rpm in rawhide allows arch specific Requires: in spec. Just want to know is it possible in Fedora and since which rpm version? I found link from comment #19 is not working. Is there any package in fedora currently using this? Just curious to know what will be the case where one really need arch specific Requires? I can't find anything related to this written in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires Regards, Parag.

4 3

Error: libpython2.4 required for installing an RPM
by suma sharma 19 May '09

19 May '09

Hi, I have built an RPM for a toolchain based on GCC-4.3.3 on FC5. When I try installing the toolchain RPM on any machine other than FC5, I get the following error: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [root@linuxsrv8 i386]# rpm -ivh m16cm32c_elf-1-1.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: libpython2.4.so.1.0 is needed by m16cm32c_elf-1-1 [root@linuxsrv8 i386]# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could anyone please help me out? Thanking you in advance. Regards, Sumasamyukta

2 2

Semantik-0.7.2 does not work under FC10
by Herli Joaquim de Menezes 17 May '09

17 May '09

Hello, friends, I'm a Kdissert user and I have tried to upgrade to semantik-0.7.2. I run Fedora FC10, KDE4.2 desktop, at a amd64 machine. I followed all recommendations according to semantik web page, I have all requirements for running semantik. But as I tried to install it, i got some troubles with qt package, some files were not found. However, in some distributions (Mandriva) it works as well as at (k)ubuntu desktop. Any guess? Im sending anexed the last try config.log. -- Herli Menezes

1 0

Link to release criteria from packaging guidelines?
by Jon Stanley 14 May '09

14 May '09

This is obviously an offshoot of the thread o' doom on f-d-l. I'm hoping that cooler heads can prevail here :) I think that, while it's common sense, maybe rather than come up with an impossible packaging guideline about broken deps, a simple link from the packaging guidelines to the release criteria would be sufficient , noting that the overarching health of the distro should be taken into account when making packaging decisions. Thoughts/flames/suggestions?

5 8

/etc/dbus-1/system.d/ files.
by Kevin Fenzi 14 May '09

14 May '09

Greetings. It's come up in the review of a package I have submitted that there is no guideline for /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500437 My understanding is that these are not really config files. End users should not be editing them. Many of the packages that have files in there do not mark them as config. Some packages do. I suppose they could be edited by end users, but I wouldn't think it would be very common or desired. Should we have a guideline for them (or add to an existing one)? Should the be marked config or not? Should they not be under /etc/ at all? Thoughts? kevin

4 4

FPC Availability Chart
by Tom Callaway 13 May '09

13 May '09

With the available information, I made a chart in the wiki to show what possible availability each FPC member had for meeting times: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/FPC_Availability Xavier Lamien and Dominik Mierzejewski did not provide data as to their availability. However, due to the lack of any overlap between Hans de Goede and Toshio Kuratomi, it does not seem possible for us to pick any meeting time that will permit all of the FPC to attend. I'm open to suggestions as to how to resolve this. ~spot

4 5

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Java guideline inconsistency
by Nicolas Mailhot 12 May '09

12 May '09

Le Dim 10 mai 2009 00:41, Fernando Nasser a écrit : >> > Also, I find it a bit inconsistent that java packages don't have >> to have >> > a java- prefix as python, perl, php and so on packages have to. >> >> I do to but I think this is the standard for enough packages that we >> shouldn't look at fixing it unless it's causing breakage. > > Agreed. Most (all?) of this stuff came from JPackage and there's > little > point in breaking compatibility/naming. Also, perl and python components are released from a centralised source, while java components aren't. The perl- prefix works because it's effectively a cpan- prefix Other languages like C which do not have a centralized source also do not use a common prefix. So java is consistent -- Nicolas Mailhot

2 1

Java -- how to use jni.h
by Stepan Kasal 12 May '09

12 May '09

Hello, I have found the hard way that jni.h need not to be in the default include path (like it is for gcj) and that the right include directories are maintained by alternatives, ready to use, so the following ensures the spec using jni bindings compiles under any java: BuildRequires: java-devel [...] for i in -I/usr/lib/jvm/java/include{,/linux}; do java_inc="$java_inc $i" done %configure CPPFLAGS="$java_inc" (see also http://bugzilla.redhat.com/498964#c2) Could this information be added to Packaging:Java? Is there anything I can do for it? (To save my successors a few days of investigation.) Cheers, Stepan

2 3

Re: Agenda for the 2009-05-12 Packaging Committee meeting
by Ralf Corsepius 12 May '09

12 May '09

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > The Packaging Committee will meet Tuesday, 2009-05-12 at 17:00UTC in > the #fedora-meeting channel on chat.freenode.net. As last time (and likely thoughout the whole daylight saving time), 17:00 UTC will very likely not work for me. Therefore, preliminary comments/votes interspersed: > FPC works from the agenda at > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo; here are some > things which should be brought up for discussion at the next meeting: > > GConf scriptlets (revisit from previous meeting) - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf 0, same rationale as the last time. > Globus (revisit from previous meeting) - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Globus -1, same rationale as the list time. > Guidelines for package pre-reviews - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Pre-review_Guidelines_(draft) -1, I don't consider this plan to be useful and do not support it. > Manpage guidelines - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MAN_pages_which_exists_in_other_places(draft) -1, I don't see any need for adding such a guideline. Besides the fact that's often hardly possible to review man-pages and that Debian man-pages are of very varying quality, this is a packaging detail which I prefer to be left to discretion of each packager. Ralf

1 0

Packaging RPM presentation
by Shakthi Kannan 10 May '09

10 May '09

Hi, I have tried to make a simple presentation on packaging RPM. Can you please go through the following, and let me know if I have missed something, or there is anything that I overlooked (that needs changes), or something that will be good to include in the following? http://shakthimaan.com/downloads/glv/presentations/packaging-red-hot-paneer… The sources are available at: http://shakthimaan.com/downloads/glv/presentations/packaging-red-hot-paneer… Thanks! SK -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging May 2009