packaging August 2010

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

22 participants
14 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

How to install vim syntax files?
by Martin Gieseking 28 Aug '10

28 Aug '10

Hi, it seems, there's currently no common way how to add vim add-ons (e.g. syntax files) provided by several packages. Some packages place them in the versioned folder /usr/share/vim/vimXY, some in /usr/share/vim/vimfiles. The latter seems to be the better alternative to me. However, what's about directory ownership? Should we always add a dependency to vim-common (and use subpackages containing some small vim files), or should the package own the affected folders (multiple ownership like /etc/bash-completion.d)? I found several packages that either a) add Requires: vim-common, or b) add %dir %{datadir}/vim/vimfiles/syntax, or c) just put the syntax files somewhere below %{datadir}/vim without considering directory ownership, or d) add the vim files with %doc for manual installation in ~/.vim/syntax So what's the recommended way to add these kind of add-ons? Martin

3 6

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora
by Denis Arnaud 28 Aug '10

28 Aug '10

2010/8/28 <packaging-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> > > Are there any specific Version Control systems which are designed to work > > with the RPM format out of the box like svn, cvs, git, sccs? > > > > I would potentially like something that will automagically populate the > > ?Version? and ?Changelog? fields in my spec files for some home grown > > packages I maintain. > Some Boost developers have started and maintain ryppl (as reported in http://lists.boost.org/boost-cmake/2010/08/0924.php), which may correspond (partly) to what you are looking for: http://ryppl.org/ http://ryppl.github.com/ http://github.com/boost-lib/ Then, of course, there are the tools used by Fedora. To name a few, Mock, Koji <https://fedorahosted.org/koji/>, Bodhi<https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/>, Mash <http://people.redhat.com/notting/mash/>, TurboGears<http://turbogears.org/>, Git, Trac, FedPkg. And, for the virtual machines, Xen is apparently used. Denis

1 0

FW: EXTERNAL: RPM and Version Control Systems
by Boyce, Kevin P (AS) 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

Anyone have any suggestions . . . Hi All, Hopefully I'm at the right place to ask this question. Does anyone know a good way to keep rpm packages under revision control? How does the fedora team manage all those packages? Are there any specific Version Control systems which are designed to work with the RPM format out of the box like svn, cvs, git, sccs? I would potentially like something that will automagically populate the "Version" and "Changelog" fields in my spec files for some home grown packages I maintain. Regards, Kevin -- packaging mailing list packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

2 2

ticket
by Jonathan MERCIER 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

hello, i have do a ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/7 since 3 week and i wait always! best regards -- Jonathan MERCIER <bioinfornatics(a)gmail.com>

3 11

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting Summary - Aug 25 2010
by Tom Callaway 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-08-25/fedora-meeting.2… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-08-25/fedora-meeting.2… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-08-25/fedora-meeting.2… Unfortunately, due to a lack of quorum, we did not have the FPC meeting on August 25, 2010. Those members in attendance were asked to review https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/7 (D Packaging Guidelines) and https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/8 (Bundled Library Guidelines), as both were updated recently. The next meeting of the Fedora Packaging Committee will be on September 1, 2010 at 1600 UTC. Thanks, ~spot

1 0

Next FPC Meeting
by Tom Callaway 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

The next Fedora Packaging Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 25, 2010 at 1600 UTC. Thanks, ~spot

4 3

RPM and Version Control Systems
by Boyce, Kevin P (AS) 17 Aug '10

17 Aug '10

Hi All, Hopefully I'm at the right place to ask this question. Does anyone know a good way to keep rpm packages under revision control? How does the fedora team manage all those packages? Are there any specific Version Control systems which are designed to work with the RPM format out of the box like svn, cvs, git, sccs? I would potentially like something that will automagically populate the "Version" and "Changelog" fields in my spec files for some home grown packages I maintain. Regards, Kevin

1 0

F-14 build tree
by Gregory Hosler 15 Aug '10

15 Aug '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, in my cvs development tree, I am not seeing a F-14 branch, yet. At the risk of sounding like I missed an announcement :-(, should I be ? I even did a "cvs co" on my project, hoping that would get ma a F-14 directory, but it did not. I'm ok if the F-14 is not yet, but I thought with F-14 approaching it might be available already. Comments, pointers to urls (that I might have missed) appreciated. - -Greg - -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ Please also check the log file at "/dev/null" for additional information. (from /var/log/Xorg.setup.log) | Greg Hosler ghosler(a)redhat.com | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxnzXcACgkQ404fl/0CV/SSEQCfTJp0VhW0TZhJNbwR9+lqsAp9 xdEAn1JSr5yWmJuCDPl3WQSwVAkKqMD0 =g8bj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging August 2010