packaging June 2009

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

45 participants
34 discussions

Putting the new GConf Schema Guidelines into effect
by Toshio Kuratomi 14 Jun '09

14 Jun '09

Hi guys, The new GConf Schema Guidelines ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GConf_Scriptlets_%28draft%29 ) have been approved by FPC and ratified by FESCo. In order to put them into effect we need to get two files installed by some package. * The /etc/rpm/macros.gconf file holds the rpm macros that hide the implementation details of installing GConf schema. These need to be present when the rpm's of GConf using packages are built. * The /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf directory holds temporary files that keep state for GConf schema between the %pre and %post stages of the rpm transaction. This needs to be available at package install time. To handle the macros file I think we should add them to redhat-rpm-config. Jon, is that fine with you? To handle the state directory, I think GConf2 should own: %dir %{_localstatedir}/lib/rpm-state/gconf Since nothing currently owns /var/lib/rpm-state, we probably want it (and anything else that uses the directory in the future) to own: %dir %{_localstatedir}/lib/rpm-state as well. Does this seem like a good plan to everyone? I can submit bugzilla reports to track the changes going into packages and update the Guidelines for the Fedora Releases where this feature becomes available if this is good. Also, FESCo asked if there was a plan to mass update all the packages. Do you guys want to have that happen? I told FESCo that the old way of writing GConf install scripts was fine. Just a bit slower and with more text to write into every spec file. -Toshio

5 10

Review Guidelines missing entry
by Toshio Kuratomi 13 Jun '09

13 Jun '09

I just noticed that although checking for static libraries is listed on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines Checking for Bundled libraries isn't: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_l… I'm going to add that as it's just a clarification rather than a change in Guidelines. If someone objects, holler and I can revert until the next FPC meeting. -Toshio

4 6

KDE 4.2.4 for FC10 rpm?
by L Pierre 12 Jun '09

12 Jun '09

KDE 4.2.4 for FC10 rpm? Regards,

2 1

Which library wins if two different libraries are named same?
by Robert Scheck 12 Jun '09

12 Jun '09

Good morning everybody, yesterday night, I noticed that there's an overlap of the libmapi.so library in the future. There are two packages which would provide a same named but different library called "libmapi.so". One is provided by the openchange package, the other will be provided by the zarafa package (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498194). Which one will win, which one has to be renamed? The openchange library already is in Fedora, but is very much newer from the history compared with the zarafa one. The openchange libmapi.so exists since ~ April 2007, the zarafa libmapi.so exists since about 5 years now. When looking to the point of producitivity, I would say that zarafa libmapi.so would win as well, as it is in productive use at their customers since they're existing as well. Or should maybe both libraries get renamed to mark which upstream they're from? This is, what I personally would prefer, especially as we're now very early in the circle and could do such a library renaming without hurting too much and too many things. Greetings, Robert

2 1

initscripts in spec file scriptlets
by Chuck Anderson 11 Jun '09

11 Jun '09

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript has an example of how to write %post/%preun scriptlets that install init scripts. The problem is, the %post one will overwrite the /etc/rc?.d/[KS] symlinks upon every package upgrade: %post # This adds the proper /etc/rc*.d links for the script /sbin/chkconfig --add <script> shouldn't this rather be: %post # This adds the proper /etc/rc*.d links for the script # only during the initial package install, not upgrades if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then /sbin/chkconfig --add <script> fi so it only does the --add on initial installs, not upgrades? If you re-do the chkconfig --add on upgrades, won't that overwrite the runlevel on/off settings that the sysadmin may have customized?

2 1

Re: The better way to use %install section
by David A. Wheeler 10 Jun '09

10 Jun '09

Murilo Opsfelder Ara?jo mopsfelder at gmail dot com asked: > I'm packing a third party software and this third party software is a > tarball with a install.sh and other binaries. ... > $ ls ... > install.sh > > To install this software I just need to run (as root) install.sh and > myprogram runs fine. > > After finishing installation I have all the files installed as the > following example: > /usr/bin/bin1 > /usr/bin/bin2 > Or do I need to copy all install.sh commands inside %install section? Tom Callaway graciously replied: > Well, this is a bit off topic for this list, but I'm in a > good mood, so I'll try to answer your questions. ... > The problem with the install.sh is that it almost certainly has the > install directories for those binaries hardcoded to /usr/bin. When > you're installing files during %install in an rpm, you want to install > those files into %{buildroot}%{_bindir}. I agree. Ideally, program authors would support the "DESTDIR" environment variable, so that you could easily install programs to an intermediate (DESTDIR) directory for later execution in the "real" directory (e.g., /usr/bin/). In my experience, almost nobody supports DESTDIR :-(. This lack of DESTDIR support causes trouble for rpm-based packagers (Fedora, RHEL, etc.) _and_ deb-based packagers (Debian, Ubuntu, etc.). For now, you have to re-implement the installation by hand. Ideally, DESTDIR support would be automated instead of requiring the modification of every makefile in the universe. That's not as easy as it seems; I've documented some options for doing that: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/automating-destdir.html I intend to release some code relatively soon that should automate DESTDIR for most installations, as noted there. But for now, you'll need to do what Tom Callaway explained above. --- David A. Wheeler

1 0

Install apache moudle will restart apache automatical?
by georgexsh 10 Jun '09

10 Jun '09

Hi guys: I'm building a apache module that write by myself. Something I don't understand is, httpd will be restarted after I install the mould package, even while I didn't put anything in the %post and %postun/%preun section, I simply add a require directive: Requires: httpd. I wander is rpm that smart to know my module need restart httpd to be activated. httpd on my box is a customed version of apache 2.0.63, and configured to be able to be managed by /sbin/service. Thanks in advance. -- georgexsh

1 0

The better way to use %install section
by Murilo Opsfelder Araujo 08 Jun '09

08 Jun '09

Hi guys, I'm packing a third party software and this third party software is a tarball with a install.sh and other binaries. For example: $ tar xvzf myprogram.tar.gz $ cd myprogram $ ls bin1 bin2 install.sh To install this software I just need to run (as root) install.sh and myprogram runs fine. After finishing installation I have all the files installed as the following example: /usr/bin/bin1 /usr/bin/bin2 What's the better way to install these files? Do I need to run install.sh on the %install section inside myprogram.spec? Something like this: %install sh install.sh Or do I need to copy all install.sh commands inside %install section? Something like this: %install install -o root -w root -m 0755 bin1 %{_installdir}/bin1 install -o root -w root -m 0755 bin2 %{_installdir}/bin2 And one question just to confirm: do I need to list all bin* files inside %files in both case, right? Thanks in advance. -- Murilo Opsfelder Araújo mopsfelder(a)gmail.com {murilo,panda}(a)bsd.com.br

2 1

Python packaging guideline has incorrect BR
by Susi Lehtola 08 Jun '09

08 Jun '09

Hi, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python still has BuildRequires: python while it should read BuildRequires: python-devel could somebody fix this? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

2 1

No Bundled Libraries Explanation
by Toshio Kuratomi 07 Jun '09

07 Jun '09

There's been quite a few requests to bundle libraries recently. Some of these from web applications, one from C applications, one in the kernel itself. Cassmodiah has been good enough to create a tracker bug for these here:: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504493 We probably should add applications that bundle JavaScript components here as well, although we're are letting those continue to bundle until we have JavaScript Guidelines finalized. With several of these problems, I've been asked to explain/argue/discuss why we have a No bundle rule and have also argued against the exception that was requested for one of them. Because I don't want to keep repeating myself, I've started a page with the reasons that bundling is a bad idea here:: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_Bundled_Libraries I've put this on the agenda for the Packaging Committee but would like some discussion with additions, clarifications, etc. -Toshio

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging June 2009