packaging April 2013

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

36 participants
20 discussions

Open Seat on the Fedora Packaging Committee
by Tom Callaway 09 May '13

09 May '13

The Fedora Packaging Committee has one open seat and is accepting submissions from interested candidates to serve on the FPC. The FPC would like to thank Rex Dieter for his service, as he is stepping down after several years. This position involves not only reviewing Packaging Guideline drafts submitted to the FPC for consideration, but also rewriting drafts (sometimes from scratch) to resolve the issue in a more acceptable fashion. Additionally, the FPC reviews bundling exceptions (and UID/GID soft static assignment). The FPC meets on IRC weekly, Wednesdays at 1600 UTC, for approximately an hour. FPC members serve for as long as they are willing, there are currently no term limits. All decisions are voted on using a +1 (for), 0 (abstain), and -1 (against) mechanism, and all decisions must be approved by a majority (+5). FPC Meetings do not happen if quorum (5) is not present. Candidates who are interested should provide the following details to the FPC for consideration, by emailing it directly to me (tcallawa(a)redhat.com). The FPC will consider all candidates, but strongly prefers candidates who have extensive experience packaging in Fedora. We will accept applications for the next week (deadline Wednesday Apr 24, 2013). Name: FAS Account: Provenpackager? (Yes/No): Main area of packaging interest/expertise: Reason(s) for wanting to join the FPC: Thanks in advance, ~tom == Fedora Project

1 1

Bundled text-based .afm font files
by Josef Stribny 09 May '13

09 May '13

Hi all, I would like to package rubygem-prawn (PDF generator) [1, 2] for Fedora, but I am unsure about the font files that are bundled in the .gem file. There are many .afm font files which seem not to be considered as font files according to the guidelines [3] as Miroslav in the review [2] already pointed out. Is this true and is it then fine to package them normally as any other files? Or is there a special approach of bundling/packaging text-based font files like .afm? I opened an upstream issue regarding their licensing [4] and it seems to be fine for .afm files they ship (given that we include the corresponding "MustRead.html" license file). Overall I am trying to find out how to not ship them at all, but the question still remains: how to properly package text-based fonts? Thanks Josef [1] https://github.com/prawnpdf/prawn [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883437 [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#What_is_a_… [4] https://github.com/prawnpdf/prawn/issues/474

3 3

Lightworks video editor
by Michael Hall 06 May '13

06 May '13

The Lightworks video editor becomes available for Linux tomorrow supposedly, but only for Ubuntu according to the developers. http://www.lwks.com Lightworks is a powerful, cross-platform professional video editor that has been used to cut many big-name movies over the years. It is "sort of" open source, not really at this point. But the point is that this is a really important piece of software for anyone wanting to edit video or even full 4K movies ... current Linux video editors are buggy and unreliable, Lightworks is true professional grade. So, my question is, assuming that Lightworks is released as some kind of .deb package, how likely is it that it could be converted to .rpm? I have some basic experience building RPMs and would be up for helping with this task. Mike Hall

5 9

Avoid a 32 bits package from being pushed into 64 bits repository
by Alejandro Alvarez Ayllon 30 Apr '13

30 Apr '13

Hello, I co-maintain a package that contains a library that is used as module for a server. The 32 bits version of this library is pushed automatically into the 64 bits repositories (i.e. in epel6), which doesn't make much sense, since the 64 bits version of the server won't run with the 32 bits libraries. This wouldn't be a big problem, but the pushed 32 bits rpm has a dependency on the 32 bits server, so then I will get complains (with reason) about the broken package. globus-gridftp-server-progs is the server, and dpm-dsi is the module. So my question is: how should I approach this? I got some suggestions in this ticket https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957588 Is there any way I can prevent this rpm from being copied into the 64 bits repositories? Regards.

2 2

revised draft Haskell Packaging Guidelines
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 30 Apr '13

30 Apr '13

Hi, Based on the initial feedback from FPC on the draft revision of the Haskell Packaging Guidelines I have revised and simplified them: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell . I updated the trac ticket and would appreciate if FPC would please review the new version which I think should now be more generic and acceptable. https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/194 Thanks, Jens

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-04-24 16:00 - 16:45 UTC)
by James Antill 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 15:59:56 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-04-24/fpc.2013-04-24… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 16:01:44) * Bundling exception request for Cura - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/244 (spot, 16:08:02) * ACTION: No bundling exception needed, this is a pure fork. (spot, 16:13:27) * Bundling exception for libevent in openmpi - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/273 (spot, 16:16:52) * ACTION: FPC is pretty universally against this bundling, spot will try to make a libevent-nothread.so and update libevent. (spot, 16:26:38) * Open Seat on the FPC (spot, 16:26:53) * Open Floor (spot, 16:28:26) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 (spot, 16:33:11) Meeting ended at 16:44:15 UTC. Action Items ------------ * No bundling exception needed, this is a pure fork. * FPC is pretty universally against this bundling, spot will try to make a libevent-nothread.so and update libevent. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * spot * FPC is pretty universally against this bundling, spot will try to make a libevent-nothread.so and update libevent. * **UNASSIGNED** * No bundling exception needed, this is a pure fork. People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (39) * limburgher (30) * tibbs (22) * abadger1999 (18) * geppetto (16) * Smoother1rOgZ (7) * zodbot (4) * Rathann (4) * racor (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

3 2

Re: [Fedora-packaging] [fedora-java] Shipping of binaries in jar files
by Orion Poplawski 26 Apr '13

26 Apr '13

On 04/26/2013 03:39 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > Quoting Andrew Haley (2013-04-26 11:11:41) >> On 04/22/2013 11:01 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: >>> The eclipse PTP project that I package is starting to ship an executable in >>> one of its plugins. The executable is packed into a jar file. This prevents >>> debuginfo creation for the executable. >>> >>> I started taking a look at how this might be handled elsewhere and found: >>> >>> /usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.cdt.core.linux.x86_64_5.2.0.201302132326.jar: >>> 13327 Defl:X 3624 73% 02-13-2013 23:21 326488c7 >>> os/linux/x86_64/libpty.so >>> 23720 Defl:X 7151 70% 02-13-2013 23:21 c26c2c94 >>> os/linux/x86_64/libspawner.so >>> >>> but no debuginfo package. >>> >>> Thoughts, comments? >> >> This is pretty obviously a breach of packaging guidelines. We shouldn't >> be hiding DSOs in archives. > > Hmm, I am not aware of any guideline touching this topic (perhaps because it's > not that common). But from practical perspective these jars are extremely > practical because they don't have to deal with JNI file locations and similar > things which ten to be quite variable. > > I don't consider this approach hiding, but we could surely improve the tooling > support for it. > > WRT original question, I am not sure how to proceed. Even if you generate > debuginfo packages I have to wonder how easy will it be to use in a debugger? > The workaround that I am employing for the moment in PTP is to install a copy of the binary in %{_libdir}/ptp so that rpm can find it an generate debuginfo. As for how useful that might be, I don't know. I *think* gdb matches things up via hashes these days so it might work, and might for the cdt shared libraries as well. Whatever the solution, I think we need to improve our tooling to check inside of archives for binaries. I'm CC'ing the packaging list as well. -- 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 1

%{macro} vs. %macro in spec files
by Alexey I. Froloff 25 Apr '13

25 Apr '13

There are two forms of using macros in spec files - %{macro} and %macro. RPM supports second form since 4.0, IIRC. In one of my packaged I used %_bindir macro and was told by reviewer to change it to %{_bindir}. OTOH, %configure is also a macro, but it is widely used without curly brackets. What's the point of using %{macro} form for some, but not all macros? -- Regards, -- Sir Raorn. --- http://thousandsofhate.blogspot.com/

7 9

[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

Another round of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines have been made: --- A new section on packaging cron jobs has been added: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/CronFiles --- The guidelines for migrating from sysv init scripts to systemd were clarified to state that the migration triggers only need to be kept for two releases (to cover the range of supported upgrades). For example, if the package converted to systemd unit files in F18, the migration support could be dropped in the F21. It is not mandatory that they drop them, this is just to clarify that they have the option of dropping them at that point. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Packages_migrati… --- If an update to your package resolves a known security concern (at the time of the update) with a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) number assigned to it, you should mention the CVE number in the RPM changelog entry. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Security_Updates_To_Res… --- The Java Guidelines have been updated with macros that simplify packaging on F19+, a specific circumstance where JAR files can be now installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}/ under its usual name, and other cleanups proposed by the Java SIG. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java --- The ruby gems guidelines have been updated to make use of the %gem_install macro that is available in Fedora 19 and beyond. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby --- The packaging guidelines have been clarified to specify that RPM Macro files stored in /etc/rpm/ are not to be marked %config. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional… --- A Bundling exception for nodejs-should to include the forked code fragment from the Node.js "assert" module was approved. --- These guideline changes were approved by the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC). Many thanks to Jóhann B. Guðmundsson, Przemek Klosowski, David Malcolm, Jamie Nguyen, Vit Ondruch, Michal Srb, 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 2

BitBucket SourceURL?
by Christopher Meng 19 Apr '13

19 Apr '13

Hi folks, Is there any section about BitBucket source? I've checked here[1] and found nothing special for BB. Thanks. [1]-----http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging April 2013