packaging July 2013

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

43 participants
26 discussions

Binary in libxxx package
by Christopher Meng 22 Jul '13

22 Jul '13

Hi, I'm packaging a library, but the problem is that this package will generate a binary of its implementation. I think libxxx packages should only contain .so.*/.h files, and I cannot put it into devel package, so can I put it into main package? I don't want to create a subpackage for this file. Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

5 6

Web Assets/JavaScript guideline drafts
by T.C. Hollingsworth 19 Jul '13

19 Jul '13

I'm getting rather sick of doing this by the seat of my pants and arguing about various details in reviews, so it's high time something got done about this. Plus, were working hard to actually get some JS libraries (like jQuery, finally!) packaged properly, so it would be nice to have some guidelines so that we can package them...properly. So, down the rabbit hole we go... I've drafted some JavaScript guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/JavaScript And some guidelines for the other various shareable bits that aren't JavaScript: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/Web_Assets And finally a F20 Change proposal that outlines the engineering component: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets The most notable difference between these and previous efforts is that I decided to go with One JavaScript Directory to Rule Them All. Debian has already gone this route and I think it's much simpler than the previous notion of requiring Apache configs for every JS library under the sun. This way it's simple enough so it works with *any* HTTP daemon. I hope to submit the Change proposal to the Feature Wrangler/FESCo and the drafts to FPC soonish, but I'd very much like to get some feedback first. I'm sure there missing several details and could use some love in certain areas, so please let me know what you think. (And feel free to edit if necessary, it's a wiki after all!) Thanks! -T.C.

8 22

Conflicts when data is moved to a sub-package
by Till Maas 18 Jul '13

18 Jul '13

Hi, it seems to me that https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts does not cover a case for conflicts that might occur if a package is split. Here is the bug report about the intended split: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952326 Basically dvb-apps currently contains a plaintext file based database in /usr/share/dvb/dvb-t/ which is supposed to provided by a new backage, dtv-scan-tables. Since the individual files might differ, conflicts can occur here, which is why it seems that the new dtv-scan-table package should use "Conflict: dvb-apps < VERSION-RELEASE" for the version/release that does not contain the database anymore to confclit with all previous versions. Since this does not seem to be covered by the guidelines, I ask for your opinion. Regards Till

3 6

systemd and privileged ports
by Daniel Pocock 18 Jul '13

18 Jul '13

Hi, In my blog the other day, I noted that upcoming versions of my package will be able to bind on port 443 (to provide TLS protected SIP over WebSockets) I've made upstream changes so the process can be started as root and drop privileges after binding. Somebody commented that I can use systemd to create the socket though. Looking at the man pages very briefly, I have the impression that this is only relevant to processes that spawn a new process to handle each client and that processes handling multiple clients can't take advantage of this. Is that correct? Or can systemd pass in a listening socket that has not received any connection yet? Regards, Daniel

2 1

Question about upstream project aggregating source packages
by Simone Caronni 18 Jul '13

18 Jul '13

Hello, I mantain the Guacamole stack [1] for Fedora. Upstream has changed the way it packages sources; all the components have been merged in 2 bigger source tarballs [2], one being guacamole-client for the Java web application and the other one being guacamole-server for the native server components. Each new tarball will generate almost the same packages. guacamole-server.src.rpm will generate only: guacd libguac libguac-client-rdp libguac-client-ssh libguac-client-vnc guacamole-client.src.rpm will generate only: guacamole The following are now integrated in guacamole: guacamole-common guacamole-common-js guacamole-ext What's the procedure here? I thought about this: 1- Create a new review request for guacamole-server 2- After having git access retire guacd and libguac* 3- Create a rename review for guacamole -> guacamole-client 4- After git access, make sure guacamole obsoletes guacamole-{common,common-js,ext} 5- Retire guacamole-{common,common-js,ext} This will give me only guacamole-client and guacamole-server in koji/git. Is this correct? [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?match=glob&type=package&terms=*gu… [2] http://guac-dev.org/pub/dist/source/ Thanks, --Simone -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). http://xkcd.com/229/

1 0

Two packages that want to own the same parent directory
by Darryl L. Pierce 12 Jul '13

12 Jul '13

I have two separate pieces of Python code (one pure Python, one that is C++ code that has a Swigged Python binding) that each want to live in a package named qpid. (they're both Python bindings for the Qpid project) Is it possible to have two different packages (they're not subpackages of some other package) live in a directory like /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/qpid without either one explicitly owning the directory qpid? A user can potentially install one or both. Their code will all live inside of subdirectories of qpid (either messaging or messagingc). How do I handle that from a packaging perspective? -- Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce(a)gmail.com> http://mcpierce.multiply.com/ "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

3 2

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-07-11 16:00 - 17:16 UTC)
by James Antill 11 Jul '13

11 Jul '13

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by abadger1999 at 16:02:57 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-07-11/fpc.2013-07-11… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (abadger1999, 16:03:06) * Bundling exception for nodejs-expect-js https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/297 (abadger1999, 16:04:13) * Bundling exception for nodejs-expect-js passes (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 16:14:05) * Please deprecate usage of systemd-sysv-convert in the packaging https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/308 (abadger1999, 16:14:47) * Drop use of systemd-sysv-convert from the guidelines Approved (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 16:33:18) * Request review of httpd-itk https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/310 (abadger1999, 16:34:02) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598860 (Rathann, 16:47:50) * httpd-itk's bundling of apache is denied at this time (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 16:56:05) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 16:57:37) * geppetto will be unable to attend for the next two weeks (abadger1999, 16:58:14) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FPC_meeting_process (geppetto, 17:00:09) * ACTION: tibbs|w will handle sending the meeting agenda next week. (abadger1999, 17:02:25) Meeting ended at 17:16:57 UTC. Action Items ------------ * tibbs|w will handle sending the meeting agenda next week. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * tibbs|w * tibbs|w will handle sending the meeting agenda next week. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (56) * tibbs|w (37) * limburgher (36) * Rathann (26) * geppetto (21) * tchol (6) * zodbot (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Issue packaging python lib into RPM due to conflicting __init__.py
by Braddock 10 Jul '13

10 Jul '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks Michael, that provides some clarity. I think I probably need to coordinate with the maintainer of the python-backports-ssl_match_hostname package, because he is clobbering the backports/__init__.py* namespace files we both need. While I could patch the __init__.py files to be identical, the compiled .pyc files are never exactly the same. They need to be factored out into a separate package somehow. My newbie question is how do I find the maintainer? The RPM meta-data only specifies "Fedora Project" as the maintainer. - -braddock > Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:48:59 +0200 From: Michael Schwendt > <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> To: packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Issue packaging python lib into > RPM due to conflicting __init__.py Message-ID: > <20130707204859.10ed3776(a)faldor.intranet> Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=utf-8 > > On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:20:47 -0700, Braddock wrote: > >> file /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/backports/__init__.py from >> install of backports.lzma-0.0.2-1.armv7hl conflicts with file >> from package >> python-backports-ssl_match_hostname-3.2-0.3.a3.fc18.noarch > > This means that both packages contain a file in that path, and > either the file checksum or the file permissions are not the same. > >> I am uncertain how to resolve this. Is there a way for an RPM to >> only create the backports/__init__.py file if it does not already >> exist? > > No. When you create these packages, _you_ need to ensure that they > don't include conflicting files. How do those __init__.py files > differ in those multiple packages? Is it only a matter of different > versions of the backports module? Remember, you've got full control > over the package %{buildroot} at build-time, so you could delete > files you don't want and which are included in a separate (shared!) > package already. > >> There are a number of packages which would want to live under >> the backports/ module. > > That's okay, but it's not okay if they all contain a differing > backports/__init__.py file. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR3cDuAAoJEHWLR/DQzlZuuFIH/08Y7qkxY01ZbRNV2aOLVZC+ mjI3+QcR2bKPadDD2BALNyUT/ct36i7u3+endu+j1A8HHj2ls9iEIRisvIM5S9QM 3QuvWcDUR3rkQSZlDcqSiuKDbo0qJU297n/HW1YJmGYLdXW6ClbSU5vt0WYvd5vw 77hHRF86mvyKsd30rGRLzmbksOIz4nO6gdauh3fAgd2bGLIgJgsExBTSwz9yoV8b GVW66wfVREyFa3BmxvpoGnOczW/UoN1sNqDykVHx7EwXQAQ8HOlgB4poxsIY0AHu Fqwmsgj74G0RKAwqnRxT91n1J2xYhUNULXUx9ngnM81RkfOjkygE7ewaisOgbpg= =euFm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-07-11 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 10 Jul '13

10 Jul '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-06-27 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-07-11 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2013-07-11 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2013-07-11 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-07-11 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2013-07-11 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2013-07-11 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2013-07-11 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-07-12 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2013-07-12 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2013-07-12 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2013-07-12 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = Followups = #297 Bundling exception for nodejs-expect-js .fpc 297 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/297 = New business = #308 Please deprecate usage of systemd-sysv-convert in the packaging policy for F20 .fpc 308 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/308 #310 Request review of httpd-itk .fpc 310 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/310 #311 Node.js guidelines update .fpc 311 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/311 #312 Architecture specific header files .fpc 312 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.

1 0

How to deal with the porn part of a package?
by Christopher Meng 10 Jul '13

10 Jul '13

Hi all, I'm maintaining youtube-dl, an online stream downloader. Today I received a bug reported that this program contains pornsite download function. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982415 We can see that the reporter is from some arabic countries. Any ideas? Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

8 11

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging July 2013