packaging March 2010

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

36 participants
17 discussions

Arch-specific Requires
by Braden McDaniel 10 Jul '10

10 Jul '10

I brought up the issue of arch-specific Requires some months ago in response to problems I experienced with xulrunner. This issue has reared its head again with gvfs on F13: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573183 I've put up this draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequires Comments welcome. -- Braden McDaniel <braden(a)endoframe.com>

10 31

error running fedora-packager-setup
by Léon Keijser 25 May '10

25 May '10

Hi, After reinstalling F12 (fresh install, no upgrade) i tried to run 'fedora-packager-setup' and got this error: $ fedora-packager-setup Setting up Fedora packager environment Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/fedora-packager-setup", line 140, in <module> main() File "/usr/bin/fedora-packager-setup", line 114, in main if certificate_expired(): NameError: global name 'certificate_expired' is not defined I'm not sure why it's throwing this error. Léon

5 8

Packaging libraries
by Pau Garcia i Quiles 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Hello, I maintain several packages on Debian and I want to get started with RPM packaging. I. e. I am not a total newbie :-) I am now trying to package Wt ( http://webtoolkit.eu ) for Fedora. I already maintain this package in Debian ( http://packages.debian.org/libwt ). On Debian, package names are soversioned, so that it is possible to coinstall several versions of the runtime libraries. For instance, Wt 2.2.4 contained libwt.so.12 (which would had been[*] in package libwt12) and Wt 3.1.2 contains libwt.so.21 (which is in package libwt21). This is useful in case you have a library libX and have an application app1 which depends on Wt 2.2.4 (i. e. libwt.so.12) and another application, app2, which depends on Wt 3.1.2 (i. e. libwt.so.21). On Debian, this would be solved by installing packages libx5 and libx6. Keep in mind porting from Wt 2.2.4 to Wt 3.1.2 requires rewriting code, therefore unless the Wt packages are versioned on Fedora, it would be impossible to coinstall app1 and app2 on Fedora (on Debian it would be as simple as coinstalling libwt12 and libwt21). I wonder how Fedora deals with this issue. I have seen nothing in the packaging guidelines ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines ) or the RPM guide ( http://docs.fedoraproject.org/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ ), and I cannot find a specific guide for library packaging (something like http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html for Debian) [*] When I first packaged Wt for Debian, I did the horrible mistake of not versioning package names. This required transitional packages, which I will have to maintain until 2015 (!!!) because the old Wt 2.2.4 is what Canonical is shipping with Ubuntu Lucid. I'd rather not make the same mistake again :-) Thank you. -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)

4 4

make build fails with timeout
by Brad Bell 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

I would like some suggestions as to how to proceed after the following erorr: In the devel directory http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/cppad/devel/ I entered the command make build and I got the response [bradbell@localhost devel]$ make build /usr/bin/koji build dist-rawhide 'cvs://cvs.fedoraproject.org/cvs/pkgs?rpms/cppad/devel#cppad-20100101_2-1_fc…' timeout: (110, 'Operation timed out.') make: *** [build] Error 1 This happened twice. Now (Wed Mar 31 08:31:45 PDT 2010) the make hangs as follows: [bradbell@localhost devel]$ make build /usr/bin/koji build dist-rawhide 'cvs://cvs.fedoraproject.org/cvs/pkgs?rpms/cppad/devel#cppad-20100101_2-1_fc…' and I have to kill the koji process

3 2

Mention %{_sharedstatedir} difference on RPMMacros for EPEL
by Till Maas 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Hiyas, I noticed that the RPMMacros page does not mention that %{_sharestatedir} expands to %{_prefix}/com on CentOS and probably also RHEL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros Also it would be nice to have the notes about differences in other releases inside a admonition, to make them easier visible. Regards Till

8 15

Packaging a noarch pkgconfig library?
by Michel Alexandre Salim 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

Hi all, I'm packaging gnome-js-common, which contains some JavaScript libraries intended to be used from gjs and seed (the latter is also being packaged). It contains only noarch .js files, so I'm intending to make the entire package noarch, but it also provides a .pc file. It turns out that, on x86_64, the 64-bit pkgconfig does *not* pick up files in /usr/lib/pkgconfig by default, which I guess is a good thing in most situations. However, in this case it does make for an annoying situation. 1) Overriding PKG_CONFIG_PATH is a bad idea. What if a program needs gnome-js-common (which is noarch) and some arch-dependent libs that also use pkgconfig for dependency tracking? It might erroneously satisfy 64-bit dependencies with 32-bit ones. 2) Putting the .pc file in both /usr/lib64/pkgconfig *and* /usr/lib/pkgconfig would require co-owning /usr/lib64/pkgconfig Should I just leave the package as arch-dependent even though it is not? Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim

2 1

rpmlint clarification to guidelines
by Ville Skyttä 26 Mar '10

26 Mar '10

Hello, While checking for debuginfos every now and then, I've come across a bunch of reviews over time where it's quite obvious that the submitter/reviewer did not run rpmlint on all rpms. I suggest making it more clear that rpmlint should/must be run on all rpms related to the package, both the source one and all binary ones, and binary ones preferably after installing them. For rationale, see CAVEATS in the rpmlint man page. For example: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_rpmlint -Run rpmlint on the rpms to ... +Run rpmlint on all binary and source rpms the build produces (binary ones preferably after installing them) to ... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines -MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package +MUST: rpmlint must be run on all binary and source rpms the build produces

1 0

port opening and PATH modification in rpm spec file
by MGandra＠diskeeper.com 26 Mar '10

26 Mar '10

Hi I am new to rpm packaging and I want to do 2 things. 1. Modify the %PATH variable and add my "/usr/bin/Test folder" to it. This should be done from RPM while installing. It should exist until we uninstall. 2. Need to open a port so that our program can use it to send and receive data. This also should be done from RPM while installing. Thanks Madhukar Gandra

7 8

Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
by Development discussions related to Fedora 22 Mar '10

22 Mar '10

Hi, I am packaging the application tnef [1], where the reviewer has queried whether I need to provide a desktop file. This is a little different from a normal GUI application desktop file. The application is command line only. I have added a shellscript, and some desktop files that cause nautilus and kde file managers to show .dat files as having a potential open with tnef extract entry. So while I'm including .desktop files, they aren't in the menus. Is this acceptable, packaging wise ? David. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522920

8 11

FESCo request: guideline about dependencies on redhat-lsb
by Bill Nottingham 19 Mar '10

19 Mar '10

As a followup to FESCo ticket 346 (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/346), FESCo would like the Fedora Packaging Committee to draft a guideline against dependencies on redhat-lsb (and its potential subpackages). The idea is that appllications in Fedora should be packaged to use the Fedora native tools, not their LSB equivalents. Thanks in advance, Bill, on behalf of FESCo

8 9

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging March 2010