packaging March 2011

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

25 participants
19 discussions

invalid soname question?
by Bruno Wolff III 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Am I getting the warning below because there is a period in the lib name? mygui-devel.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libMyGUI.OgrePlatform.so If so, is it really an error?

3 7

heimdal packaging
by Orion Poplawski 28 Mar '11

28 Mar '11

I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001 heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence. One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

2 2

upstream source contains .gif files.
by Paul Elliott 28 Mar '11

28 Mar '11

My upstream source contains .gif files that are not essential. If I delete these file and never use them, can I use this tarball as my pristine source, or must I resource? Thank You. P.S. there are a lot of complicated rules to create a package. -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelliott(a)BlackPatchPanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117

4 4

[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway 24 Mar '11

24 Mar '11

Here are the changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines for this week: --- The Packaging:PHP guidelines have been updated to reflect that PEAR documentation provided by upstream are installed in %{pear_docdir}, should stay there, and must be marked as %doc. Additionally, the definition of pear_docdir has been defined as %{_docdir}/pear. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP --- The Java guidelines have been updated to add information and sample template for Maven 3 (Fedora 15+). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java --- These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC). Many thanks to Remi Collet, Stanislav Ochotnicky, and all of the members of the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing these guidelines. As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure Thanks, ~spot

2 1

default package list
by Kevin 23 Mar '11

23 Mar '11

Hi, Is there a minimal list of packages that are installed by default for every fedora install? -kevin

2 1

[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway 22 Mar '11

22 Mar '11

Here are the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines: --- The Emacs packaging guidelines were updated to handle cases where a package's principal functionality does not require (X)Emacs, but the package also includes some auxiliary Elisp files to provide support for the package in (X)Emacs. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs --- The Scriptlet Snippets section dealing with the order that scriptlets are invoked has been updated to include %trigger scripts. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Scriptlet_Orderi… --- A subsection was added to the Packaging Guidelines section on Filesystem Layout in which it is made explicit that binaries in /bin or /sbin must NOT depend on any libraries in /usr/lib or /usr/lib64. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Binaries_in_.2Fbin_and_… --- The section on Epochs was improved, and clarifying language about Epoch use in Requires was added to the Packaging Guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_Epochs https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires --- New guidelines were added covering the packaging of Ada programs. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ada --- The section on Boostrapping in the Treatment of Bundled Libraries page in the Packaging Guidelines has been amended to add the following: Packages which are built in such a bootstrapping mode must not be tagged for a final release (or pushed as an update for any stable release). FPC will track the progress of approved bootstrapping exceptions via the ticket requesting the bootstrap bundling exception. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries#Boo… --- Macro forms of system executables (such as %{__rm}) should not be used except when there is a need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros --- These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC). Many thanks to Hans Niedermann, Jonathan Underwood, Pavel Zhukov, and all of the members of the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing these guidelines. As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure Thanks, ~spot

3 2

Renaming historical Python packages (e.g. MySQL-python)
by Michel Alexandre Salim 21 Mar '11

21 Mar '11

Hi all, Juha Tuomala (IRC: Tuju) and I were wondering if we should get MySQL-python renamed. The rationale is that these days we sometimes have several Python stacks on the same release, and it would be nice to be easily able to see which packages have been rebuilt or not (e.g. python26-PKG, python-PKG, python3-PKG). MySQLdb (current name: MySQL-python) seems to get its name from the released tarball. Juha wants to package a python26 build of MySQLdb but prefers a python26- prefix. Question: 1) should it go ahead, with the main MySQLdb package not renamed, or should the python26 package name always correspond to its "default Python" counterpart? 2) if we are renaming, should it be to python*-MySQLdb? that's what the Python module is called. or to python*-mysql ? Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

1 0

ExclusiveArch and dependencies
by Björn Persson 17 Mar '11

17 Mar '11

I have a question regarding the use of ExclusiveArch. At https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#ExcludeArch_.26_ExclusiveArch it says that only packages which are exclusively architecture-specific should use ExclusiveArch. Is it appropriate to extend this to packages which aren't architecture-specific themselves, but which depend on a package that is available only on some architectures? The reason why I'm asking is that some packages with Ada code which I maintain can't be built on architectures where Gnat, the Ada compiler, is unavailable, and apparently this annoys the people who work on secondary architectures. The proposed workaround is to add ExclusiveArch entries to the Ada packages, listing the architectures where the gcc-gnat package is available, and then update those entries when someone manages to bootstrap Gnat on a new architecture. I'd like to know if this use of ExclusiveArch is acceptable, or if I'll run the risk of being told that it's against the rules and must be removed. Björn Persson

4 4

Minor PHP Guidelines Changes Proposal for PEAR doc files placement
by Remi Collet 15 Mar '11

15 Mar '11

I raised a very old practice about PEAR doc files Please, read https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/69 Regards, Remi. P.S. keeping doc files in standard %{pear_docdir} will make spec files cleaner / simpler.

1 0

Fwd: systemd guidelines update
by Toshio Kuratomi 15 Mar '11

15 Mar '11

The draft page has been updated to only reflect guidelines for new services so that FPC can try to work on and vote on it and then work on and vote on migration separately if necessary. The scriptlets are on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft Some idea for testing are on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Testing_systemd The top few test cases are written out step by step with expected output... But there's really a whole matrix of tests and many of the tests that should be run are just mentioned as "Do the same as above but change this one aspect". If you run those tests and record how you did them it will make it easier to test the scriptlets again when we add the migration portions. -Toshio

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging March 2011