packaging May 2013

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

36 participants
29 discussions

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

Fwd: [ANN] Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 released
by Mihamina Rakotomandimby 06 May '13

06 May '13

Well, Here comes a security release. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ANN] Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 released Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 12:56:17 +0200 From: jean-frederic clere <jfclere(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: Tomcat Users List <users(a)tomcat.apache.org> To: Tomcat Developers List <dev(a)tomcat.apache.org>, Tomcat Users List <users(a)tomcat.apache.org> The Apache Tomcat team announces the immediate availability of Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 stable. Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 is primarily a security and bug fix release. All users of older versions of the Tomcat 6.0 family should upgrade to 6.0.37. Note that is version has 4 zip binaries: a generic one and three bundled with Tomcat native binaries for different CPU architectures. Apache Tomcat 6.0 includes new features over Apache Tomcat 5.5, including support for the new Servlet 2.5 and JSP 2.1 specifications, a refactored clustering implementation, advanced IO features, and improvements in memory usage. Please refer to the change log for the list of changes: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/changelog.html Downloads: http://tomcat.apache.org/download-60.cgi Migration guide from Apache Tomcat 5.5.x: http://tomcat.apache.org/migration.html Thank you, -- The Apache Tomcat Team --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe(a)tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help(a)tomcat.apache.org -- RMA.

1 0

Convert 64bit DEB to RPM - dependency errors
by Michael Hall 04 May '13

04 May '13

I am attempting to repackage a DEB version of the Lightworks video editor as an RPM for Fedora 18 (x86_64). I have unpacked the DEB file and copied the contents of data.tar.gz (/usr and subdirectories) to my BUILDROOT directory. Then I created a spec file which basically just specifies package info and the %files section. The RPM builds OK but does not install due to dependency errors. The dependencies are all actually in the RPM itself, as the Lightworks DEB package includes its own versions of needed libraries in /usr/lib/lightworks. Obviously, the RPM doesn't know about this. Apparently Debian doesn't use the /usr/lib64 location for 64 bit libraries. The problem may have something to do with this, or ldconfig or similar. Adding /sbin/ldconfig to a %post section has made no difference. Putting the libraries in either /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 in the RPM also hasn't fixed the issue Any suggestions on how I can resolve this?

4 5

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Package rename breakage - wat do?
by Stephen Gallagher 03 May '13

03 May '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I accidentally replied only to the node mailing list, but this is my interpretation of the situation: On 05/02/2013 07:41 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 05/02/2013 06:55 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 02/05/13 08:38, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > >>> So, should we: 1. provide a compatibility symlink so older >>> versions of nodejs-request aren't broken at all >>> >>> 2. add Conflicts to nodejs-cookie-jar specifiying the older >>> versions of nodejs-request that it will break >>> >>> 3. do nothing; if you install only part of a single bodhi >>> update and it breaks you get to keep both pieces > > > FYI, this is not technically permissible. The packaging guidelines > require clean upgrade paths. If you need to install multiple pieces > of a Bodhi update for things to work, they need to be arranged > with Requires/Obsoletes/Conflicts appropriately so that they are > pulled in automatically. Anything else is a bug in the packaging. > >> Another option is to say that a rename of a node module is not >> what the rename guidelines call a "compatible enough replacement" >> which would mean the new package would not provide the old name, >> but would still obsolete it. > > > That's not necessarily true. If it's a one-to-one replacement > (except for the name), then I'd suggest that option 1 is the best > plan for the short term, but that we should open Bugzilla tickets > against all known packages depending on the old name to update in > their next releases. > > If just adding a symlink to make it a full replacement is enough to > do the job, that's definitely the least impact. No need to force > an update until the other package is ready for it. > > >> Any packages that depended on the old name would then need to be >> rebuilt to depend on the new name and yum would not allow one to >> be updated without the other. > >> Tom > > > _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing > list nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/nodejs > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlGCXdUACgkQeiVVYja6o6N3owCgiAMU6mbFAi7n7gcU1aqgorkX XA8AnRg1pDPe/VB+KKxochRMjAD6rZ6R =F3h3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Auto-Provides and glibc
by David Michael 02 May '13

02 May '13

Hi, Quick question: I've been cleaning up some local packages of mine, including a glibc, and noticed it's automatically adding Provides for all of the iconv modules %{libdir}/gconv/*.so. I thought I'd filter out these files as per the guidelines[1], but apparently the system glibc also provides them. No packages seem to require any of them[2]. Was this an oversight, or is there a reason to keep advertising these ~250 modules through RPM Provides? Thanks. David [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering [2] repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps `rpm -q --provides glibc | sed -n /^ANSI/,/^VISC/p`

1 0

rpm pre/post script order
by Farkas Levente 02 May '13

02 May '13

hi, after we carefully examine this wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets?rd=Packaging/Scr… still don't understand how rpm works (or the wiki is wrong). suppose we've got a package pkg with this in the spec: %pre . /usr/share/pkg/foo pkg_pre %post . /usr/share/pkg/foo pkg_post where pkg_pre and pkg_post are shell functions in the /usr/share/pkg/foo shell script file. pkg-1.0 has this function: pkg_pre { echo "pre-1.0"; } pkg_post { echo "post-1.0"; } while pkg-2.0: pkg_pre { echo "pre-2.0"; } pkg_post { echo "post-2.0"; } questions 1: if i install pkg-1.0 will it echo pre-1.0? if yes how can it be possible since the file /usr/share/pkg/foo only installed in step 3 which is after step 2 (%pre of new package)? questions 2: when i upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0 according to the above wiki step 2. it should have to echo pre-2.0 or pre-1.0? since the already installed /usr/share/pkg/foo is 1.0? but (after we test it) we got pre-2.0. why? so what is the truth here and how can i run any kind of script or file installed by 1.0 during the update process to 2.0? the only way seems to %pre of the new package since step 3 install the new file (ie. overwrite all old file), so all rpm scripts of the old packages runs after the new files have been already installed. thanks. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

3 3

Package rename breakage - wat do?
by T.C. Hollingsworth 02 May '13

02 May '13

Someone recently experienced a little breakage related to a package rename, and I'm not sure about the best strategy to resolve it. Upstream finally got around to unbundling a cookie handling library from two unrelated npm packages (tobi and request). We had previously split it off in Fedora before, but needed to rename the package and move it into its final home, so the directory under /usr/lib/node_modules changed. While I shipped an updated nodejs-request along with the new nodejs-cookie-jar package in the same Bodhi update, it's possible to update to nodejs-cookie-jar (which Obsolotes/Provides the old unbundled package) without updating nodejs-request. This will of course will break request since it looks for it under the old, temporary name. So, should we: 1. provide a compatibility symlink so older versions of nodejs-request aren't broken at all 2. add Conflicts to nodejs-cookie-jar specifiying the older versions of nodejs-request that it will break 3. do nothing; if you install only part of a single bodhi update and it breaks you get to keep both pieces Both 1 or 2 are ugly in their own way, and 3 might be technically correct but doesn't seem very nice, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks in advance for suggestions! -T.C.

2 1

using the tilde in tarball versions
by Daniel Pocock 01 May '13

01 May '13

Hi, I've had a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734802 and I understand that tildes are supported by new versions of RPM, but not by Fedora infrastructure I'm currently trying to prepare an upstream project to build tarballs and I would like to use tildes in the version number of the test tarballs and distribute them through the upstream web site. They won't be uploaded to Fedora until a real release (without any tilde) is tagged. Users will manually rpmbuild packages from the tarballs. Is it considered OK to use the tilde in this manner? I presume that if a user downloads such a tarball to an older system, they will have issues with it but anybody using F18+ will be OK? Regards, Daniel

4 6

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-05-01 16:00 - 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 01 May '13

01 May '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 16:02:50 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-05-01/fpc.2013-05-01… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 16:04:30) * Schedule (spot, 16:06:28) * Revision to Haskell Guidelines - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/194 (spot, 16:08:27) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell has been reworked to drop the "section spanning" macros (spot, 16:08:51) * ACTION: Haskell Draft (with templates merged into guidelines) approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:13:57) * soft-static uid/gid for sgeadmin - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/274 (spot, 16:16:14) * ACTION: Soft-static UID/GID request was not approved (+1:4, 0:1, -1:4) (spot, 16:32:43) * Bundling libxdiff in libgit2 (and git) - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/276 (spot, 16:44:36) * Next week meeting time (spot, 16:52:11) * ACTION: Meeting Time moved to Thursday at 1600 UTC (spot, 16:57:31) Meeting ended at 16:59:12 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Haskell Draft (with templates merged into guidelines) approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Soft-static UID/GID request was not approved (+1:4, 0:1, -1:4) * Meeting Time moved to Thursday at 1600 UTC Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * Haskell Draft (with templates merged into guidelines) approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Soft-static UID/GID request was not approved (+1:4, 0:1, -1:4) * Meeting Time moved to Thursday at 1600 UTC People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (62) * tibbs (33) * limburgher (24) * geppetto (22) * abadger1999 (21) * Rathann (17) * SmootherFrOgZ (10) * racor (6) * rdieter (4) * zodbot (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging May 2013