packaging June 2010

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

39 participants
20 discussions

Packaging-related changes in GNOME
by Matthias Clasen 19 Nov '10

19 Nov '10

This cycle, some things land in GNOME land that will require minor adjustments of scriptlets: 1) GIO modules. GIO now uses a caching approach to its modules. If a package installs a loadable module in %{_libdir}/gio/modules, you need to run gio-querymodules to update %{_libdir}/gio/modules/giomodule.cache. There's the usual multilib pain; glib2 installs the binary as gio-querymodules-32/64. I propose to recommend the following scriptlets for this: %posttrans gio-querymodules-%{__isa_bits} || : %postun gio-querymodules-%{__isa_bits} || : 2) GSettings. GConf is on the way out, we will start seeing applications that are ported to GSettings (which is part of libgio in the glib2 package). GSettings uses schemas as well, and has a cache of those that needs updating if schemas are added/removed. The tool for this is glib-compile-schemas (schemas and their cache are arch-neutral, so no multilib pain here). Proposed scriptlets: %posttrans glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas || : %postun glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas || : 3) GTK3. gtk3 will be parallel installable with gtk2, which means it keeps its loadable modules separate. I took the occasion to rework things a bit to reduce the multilib pain. gdk-pixbuf loaders, theme engines and im modules get installed to %{_libdir}/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/{loaders,engines,immodules}, and the cache files for loaders and immodules have been relocated to %{_libdir}/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/{loaders,immodules}.cache. Suitable scriptlets to update these caches look as follows: %posttrans gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders-3.0-%{__isa_bits} --update-cache || : gtk-query-immodules-3.0-%{__isa_bits} --update-cache || : %postun gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders-3.0-%{__isa_bits} --update-cache || : gtk-query-immodules-3.0-%{__isa_bits} --update-cache || : I guess all the %postun scriptlets could be optimized with a if $1 -eq 0 Comments ? Matthias

4 6

Help with rpath issue
by Jirka Hladky 06 Nov '10

06 Nov '10

Hello everybody! I have run into rpath issue when creating rpm for hwloc (you might want to check package review ticket at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606498) rpath is added by libtool. Libraries are getting installed into /usr/lib64 but libtool does not recognize this as default library location on 64-bit system. One solution was to add "/usr/lib64" directory into /etc/ld.so.conf. Practical solution to get rpm was to add sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool into the %configure stage in rpm specs. I would like to get rid of these sed lines. For me it seems either that libtool is buggy or "/usr/lib64" directory is missing in /etc/ld.so.conf. I (together with upstream) would highly appreciate any feedback on it. Thanks Jirka

6 8

ownership of /usr/share/gtk-doc
by Rex Dieter 19 Jul '10

19 Jul '10

See tracking bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169 Seems an enterprising soul mass-filed bugs arguing packages placing content under /usr/share/gtk-doc doesn't necessarily need to Requires: gtk-doc that leaves the question of what should own/provide /usr/share/gtk-doc To start the bikeshedding, let me offer my own personal-preference orderred list: 1. gnome-filesytstem (comment #20) 2. add to 'filesystem' itself 3. gtk-doc-filesystem ... 83. make each consumer of /usr/share/gtk-doc own it and please suggest other alternatives, if none of these are appealing to you. -- Rex

9 11

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

Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines
by Michael Schwendt 06 Jul '10

06 Jul '10

There are dozens of -devel packages, which contain static libs only, but don't provide a virtual -static package. Many of them are OCaml (ocaml-*) and Haskell (ghc-*) packages. The Haskell packaging guidelines contain a section that seems to suggest that the packages need not provide a virtual -static package: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell#Static_vs._Dynamic_Linking What about OCaml? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml is not mentioning static libraries at all. What other exceptions exist? -- http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html

6 17

FHS being ignored
by Ralf Corsepius 05 Jul '10

05 Jul '10

Hi, Another FHS violation has made it into Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606854 Ralf

7 13

Fast Moving Package updates (fldigi)
by Randall Berry 02 Jul '10

02 Jul '10

Hi, I am one of the maintainers of fldigi[1] which is a very active and fast moving project. Minor upstream updates appear almost weekly. Should I be adding these updates to rawhide at least? I don't want to flood the system with updates but would like to keep the package fresh. [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/fldigi?_csrf_token=260530b7… -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Randall 'Randy' Berry || Fedora Packager | | Randy3lrx(a)gmail.com || Fedora Ambassador | | dp67(a)fedoraproject.org || | | Ham Radio Operator N3LRX || http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/ | | || | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Member of the Fedora Amateur Radio Special Interest Group | | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AmateurRadio | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Documentation on request special rawhide tags
by Bruno Wolff III 29 Jun '10

29 Jun '10

I went looking for documentation on when and how to request special dist tags for rawhide to make soname bumps less disruptive and didn't find any official process documentation for packagers. I ended up just filing a releng ticket, which will probably do what I want. But I think there is a problem. Either the documention is harder to find than it should be or there isn't any. I did find something for tagging in new rawhide packages, but that isn't quite the same thing. My knowledge that you can make such requests came from email messages I have seen on the mailing lists.

2 5

Adding a package to Fedora
by Jaime Robles 25 Jun '10

25 Jun '10

Good morning, I am the developer of KLog [1]&[2] a hamradio logging software for KDE/QT4. One user of KLog asked me for the reason that KLog is not included in Fedora... Well, the question seems easy for me... no Fedora's developer has been requested/interested in packaging it for Fedora :-) So this email has the objective to start the process to add KLog into Fedora so the Fedora's users can install it easily. I am not familiar with Fedora... I'm sorry for that O:-) but I would like to ask if you could provide me with a link to the "request for package" page of Fedora, if any. Would if be possible that me (or any other people) creates the package of KLog for Fedora and that package is added to the distribution? I would thank you if you could answer my questions and/or point me to the appropriate links. I have search in your website but I did not found what I was looking for. Thank you very much. [1] http://jaime.robles.es/eklog.php [2] http://developer.berlios.de/projects/klog/ -- Un saludo, Jaime Robles, EA4TV jaime(a)robles.es Visita: http://jaime.robles.es

5 4

pkgconfig as BuildRequires really needed?
by Parag Nemade 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

Hi, I see minimal build environment always pulling pkgconfig and also we have " There is no need to include the following packages or their dependencies as BuildRequires because they would occur too often." written in packaging guidelines[1]. Does this mean I can recommend in new package reviews or existing package owners to drop BuildRequires: pkgconfig in spec files? Parag. [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

4 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging June 2010