packaging August 2012

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

23 participants
16 discussions

Get paid to package! (Etherpad Lite)
by Rich Jones 20 Feb '13

20 Feb '13

Hey all! I didn't post this bounty, but it came across our system and it seems like you guys might be able to earn a quick bit of money on this one: http://gun.io/contracts/16/rpm-based-install-for-etherpad-lite-on-rhel-128 Any takers? -- Rich Jones Director, Gun.io

7 6

[Bug 821631] Gnome icon theme not needed in minimal installation
by Caterpillar 06 Sep '12

06 Sep '12

Hi, I have been told to discuss here this bug I reported months ago... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821631 What do you think about? Best regards

2 2

When to use a leading underscore?
by Björn Persson 04 Sep '12

04 Sep '12

As maintainer of fedora-gnat-project-common I sometimes work on RPM macros for use in Ada packages. Every time I define a new macro I have trouble deciding whether its name should begin with an underscore or not. I know that there is some technical difference but I've never quite understood what practical difference it makes. I've been trying to imitate macros with a similar function, so I defined _GNAT_project_dir with a leading underscore in analogy with _libdir and others. Macros containing command line flags for build tools I've defined without a leading underscore in analogy with optflags, but then there are _smp_mflags and the hardening macros which have the underscore, and __global_cflags and __global_ldflags even have two leading underscores. Could someone explain what difference a leading underscore makes and give some guidance on when I should use it? Is a double leading underscore functionally different from a single one, or is that just some kind of naming convention? Björn Persson

3 4

anybody working on smuxi?
by Adrian Alves 28 Aug '12

28 Aug '12

hello guy I want to build smuxi irc client for fedora but just wondering first if anybody is working on it? http://www.smuxi.org/page/About Let me know asap Regards, Adrian.-

1 0

Location of LICENSE and README file
by Miroslav Suchý 24 Aug '12

24 Aug '12

Hi, I packaged dozen of packages and I'm used to put LICENSE and README files just as: %doc README LICENSE which place these files in: /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} Recently I started packaging some rubygems and reviewers pointed [1,2] me that I should not explicitly move these files to this location and leave them in %{gem_instdir}. I do not feel it is correct behaviour. I ran few statistics on my workstation: I have 776 file with name LICENSE owned by some rpm package [3]. 631 packages have this file in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} [4] 145 packages have this file in different location [5] From this number 57 is rubygems packages [6] - out of 94 installed [7] So it is indeed very common for rubygems to have LICENSE in %{gem_instdir}. The other packages which have LICENSE in various paths are e.g. firefox: /usr/lib64/firefox/LICENSE or libreoffice: /usr/lib64/libreoffice/LICENSE or sos: /usr/share/sos/LICENSE or kde: /usr/share/kde4/apps/LICENSES/GPL_V2 I would like to ask: what should be correct location of LICENSE and README files. Should we standardize it (at least as SHOULD item)? Or give everyone liberty to put it anywhere he want and just flag it using %doc? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847504#c13 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805#c3 [3] rpm -qal | grep LICENSE | wc -l [4] rpm -qal |grep LICENSE |grep /usr/share/doc|wc -l [5] rpm -qal |grep LICENSE |grep -v /usr/share/doc|wc -l [6] rpm -qal |grep LICENSE |grep -v /usr/share/doc |grep /gems/|wc -l [7] rpm -qa |grep rubygem- |wc -l -- Miroslav Suchy Red Hat Systems Management Engineering

5 5

Provides for unversioned so files
by Stanislav Ochotnicky 22 Aug '12

22 Aug '12

$ repoquery --provides bind-dyndb-ldap.x86_64 2>/dev/null bind-dyndb-ldap = 1.1.0-0.14.rc1.fc17 bind-dyndb-ldap(x86-64) = 1.1.0-0.14.rc1.fc17 ldap.so()(64bit) <-------??? $ repoquery --list bind-dyndb-ldap.x86_64 2>/dev/null /usr/lib64/bind/ldap.so ... I came upon this when runnning fedora-review on this package. Now I am wondering: Is this a packaging problem in bind-dyndb-ldap (i.e. it has provides for private shared unversioned library) or is it OK? The so file is outside ldpath so that's not an issue. -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

4 5

Other people modifying specfiles...
by Darryl L. Pierce 20 Aug '12

20 Aug '12

I've a question/issue. This morning I came into work to find that one of my packages had been updated by someone other than myself or anybody on my team. Several changes were made on two branches (F18 and master) without the person so much as notifying me in advance or even asking me if it was okay. What is the proper way of handling this? I would much prefer that even proven packagers just taking it upon themselves to update packages without at least having the courtesy of notifying the package maintainer first. Not a territorial thing, but I would like to at least have some notice before someone is going to arbitrarily change a package for which I'm responsible. -- Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce(a)gmail.com> http://mcpierce.multiply.com/ "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

6 5

Build dependencies
by indent man 17 Aug '12

17 Aug '12

Hi, I'm new to rpm packaging, and a bit confused... I want to build two rpm packages: - myapp - php-pear-foo Given myapp needs php-pear-foo at build-time, should I build php-pear-foo first, install it, and then build myapp ? Is mock supposed to scan spec files and build php-pear-foo before myapp, or should I deal with build order myself ? Should I create a local repo, reference it in my mock configuration, and use it to install php-pear-foo before building myapp ? Or is there an easier way ? Any help is welcome :) Cheers

2 2

packaging an axis2-based service
by Andy Grimm 15 Aug '12

15 Aug '12

Hi, all. As part of my work packaging Eucalyptus, I need to decide where to put the "repositories" for a couple of axis2-based services. Each service runs an apache instance on a special port with a custom configuration that points to an axis2 repo path. The repo directory contains an xml config and a few directories: * lib -- this is just a symlink to the directory where the axis2 shared libraries live (i.e., /usr/lib64) * modules -- this contains symlinks to axis2 modules which are needed for this service * services -- this contains individual web services, each of which generally consists of a wsdl, an xml config file, and an ELF shared object lib and modules aren't a problem, because they just contain symlinks to files already owned by wso2-axis2 an related packages. My question is about the "services" directory. Where should it live? The only precedent in Fedora is condor-aviary, which places the repository structure in /var/lib/condor/aviary/. This means that there are .so files living in /var/lib. Is that acceptable? Or should they live somewhere under %{_libdir} and be symlinked ? Thanks. Andy

2 4

Contributing to a checkinstall package for Fedora releases
by Declan McGrath 11 Aug '12

11 Aug '12

Hi all, I'm new to this list - and have very little package building experience. I joined because I noticed that there is no checkinstall package for Fedora 17 - so I would like to contribute one. Can I ask is there a reason that there is no checkinstall package is available for Fedora 17? Just want to know so that I don't waste my time doing this only to realise there is a reason not to. I could not compile checkinstall from the source code on the checkinstall site (http://www.asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/index.php) but I managed to compile it fine using https://github.com/sevenjay/checkinstall I would plan to take https://github.com/sevenjay/checkinstall (or something similar) and use that as the basis for creating the checkinstall package. So why is there no checkinstall package, guys? Ciao, Dec

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging August 2012