packaging August 2012

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

23 participants
16 discussions

versioning question for stax-utils
by Andy Grimm 08 Aug '12

08 Aug '12

Hi, all. I have a package up for review, and there's some question about how it should be versioned. The package is stax-utils ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794923 ), which has the following situation: * They have released in the past using date-based versions (20070216, for example) * The POM files which I was able to find (this is a java package but does not bundle its own POM) use the date-based version. * I'm pulling the latest version from the subversion repository, because I need something newer than the last stable release. * There's nothing in the source tree to indicate a version at all The pieces of data that I have to use in a version-release string are the date: 20110309 and the svn revision: 238. I think the correct thing here would be to call it 20110309-0.1.svn238 , which indicates that it's a "pre-release" of 20110309, even though this specific version is unlikely to ever be released. Does this make sense? Part of what's in debate here is that the package guidelines indicate that the date should be in the release tag, but this seems redundant, and there appears to be precedent (apache-commons-csv, batik, vpnc, etc.) for omitting it. Thanks. Andy

2 2

Is this a bug or not?
by Ankur Sinha 08 Aug '12

08 Aug '12

Hi folks, I always thought that headers go into %{_includedir}. Can someone please clarify if this is really a bug or not? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727301 -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: "FranciscoD" Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/

3 4

[Guidelines Change] Change to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway 07 Aug '12

07 Aug '12

Here is one late change to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines: --- The systemd scriptlet guidelines have been updated for Fedora 18. In Fedora 18, the systemd package now provides helper macros to simplify %post, %preun, and %postun invocations in packages with systemd unit files. Additionally, these macros enable support for systemd "profiles", a Fedora 18 Feature. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd --- This guideline change was approved by the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC), but was delayed until recently, pending Feature approval of the systemd "profiles" feature. Many thanks to Lennart Poettering, 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, ~tom

1 0

[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

Here are the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines: --- A new section has been added to the SysV Initscripts section, discussing the proper use of subsys locking. Even though Fedora packages should no longer be using SysV Initscripts as a primary service mechanism, Red Hat Enterprise Linux and EPEL do. Additionally, Red Hat points partners to the Fedora Guidelines when they build for RHEL. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Careful_Handling_of… --- The review guidelines now reflect the use of sha256sum (instead of md5sum) to confirm upstream source integrity. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Things_To_Check_O… --- The PHP Packaging guidelines have been updated to include guidance about when it is appropriate to have an explicit Requires on httpd & mod_php, how to handle explicit Requires on PHP extensions, and how to handle a Requires for a minimum PHP version. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Apache_requirement https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Extensions_Requires https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Requiring_a_Minimum_PHP_version --- A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines, covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional… --- A new section on the Documentation= field in systemd unit files (F17+) has been added. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Documentation_field --- A short section on the Group tag in Fedora packages has been added. All current versions of Fedora (and their respective RPM versions) treat the Group tag as optional. Packages may include a Group: field for compatibility with EPEL, but are not required to do so. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag --- The RHEL conditionalization has been removed from the Python3 example spec file, as it is no longer valid. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_spec_file --- These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC). Many thanks to Remi Collet, David Malcolm, Vit Ondruch, Lennart Poettering, Michael Scherer, Dave Sullivan, 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, ~tom

2 1

Re: [Fedora-packaging] [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Richard W.M. Jones 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

In the interests of balance, there are costs to changing things: - Documentation becomes obsolete and has to be rewritten. - People have to be retrained. - People have to relearn tasks that they know how to do now. - Fedora becomes incompatible with other Linux and Unix (BSD etc) distros. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/

1 0

Re: [Fedora-packaging] [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Peter Lemenkov 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

Hello All. 2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung(a)0pointer.de>: > On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcallawa(a)redhat.com) wrote: > >> A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines, >> covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros. >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional… > > What's the rationale behind having these in /etc? This is hardly user > configuration, and only ever used if people build their own RPMs. We > really should try harder not to clutter /etc with stuff that is not > configuration. > > Why not have this somewhere below /usr? Agree. We should install them into /usr/lib/rpm. -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging August 2012