packaging August 2013

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

33 participants
25 discussions

arched BuildRequires?
by Björn Esser 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

Hi there! I have a question about this review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889261 Is it ok to havearched BuildRequires? In my opinion they should NOT be arched, because of the reasons given in the comments of the bug. Cheers, Björn

11 29

guidelines for go?
by Matthew Miller 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

I've been asked to help package / review a project written in Go. Since the language is new, we don't have packaging guidelines (unless I've missed them!), and I'm a Go newbie myself, so I'm left with some questions. The first question I have is over the location of packages -- the library modules. The ones that are part of golang are under %{_libdir}/golang/src/pkg. Should third-party packages go alongside, or % elsewhere? Also it appears that Go programs compiled with the canonical golang are statically linked (http://golang.org/doc/faq#Why_is_my_trivial_program_such_a_large_binary). Gccgo supports dynamic linking, but I'm not sure about compatibility issues. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>

3 13

Naming policy for adding language translation packages
by Parag Nemade 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Hi, I see that we are getting more and more translations packages in Fedora and those can be installed now via yum-langpacks plugin. I found that these packages are not following uniqueness in their naming. e.g. If I look into Russian language translation packages then we have real fedora package names as tesseract-langpack-rus kde-l10n-Russian libreoffice-langpack-ru childsplay-alphabet_sounds_ru My suggestion is we should have some naming guidelines like use language codes for language translation packages e.g. for Russian language your package should end with "-ru" only. We should have some uniqueness in package names. Regards, Parag.

3 4

Error in the systemd scriptlet snippets
by Aurelien Bompard 30 Aug '13

30 Aug '13

Hi packagers, I just realized there's a mistake in the ScriptletsSnippets page about the new systemd macros: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Macroized_script… The page asks to add "Requires: systemd", but the macros are actually expanded at build time and not at run time, thus it should simply be a single "BuildRequires: systemd" line. Example of the scriptlets when built without systemd: # rpm -q --scripts mailman3 preinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): [...] postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): %systemd_post mailman3.service preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): %systemd_preun mailman3.service postuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): %systemd_postun_with_restart mailman3.service And I install time I get: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FtLPUV: line 1: fg: no job control warning: %post(mailman3-3.0.0-0.6.bzr7218.fc19.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 Non-fatal POSTIN scriptlet failure in rpm package mailman3-3.0.0-0.6.bzr7218.fc19.noarch obviously because the "%" sign is interpreted as the job control command. When built with systemd, the scriptlets look correct: $ rpm -qp --scripts mailman3-3.0.0-0.6.bzr7220.fc19.noarch.rpm preinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): [...] postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then # Initial installation /usr/bin/systemctl preset mailman3.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : fi preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): [...] (expanded too) postuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): [...] (expanded too) This is on F19. Can you confirm that the wiki page should be fixed? Thanks. Aurélien -- http://aurelien.bompard.org ~~~~~~ xmpp:aurelien@bompard.org "I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this." -- Emo Phillips

3 2

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-08-29 16:00 - 17:42 UTC)
by James Antill 29 Aug '13

29 Aug '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 16:00:27 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-08-29/fpc.2013-08-29… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 16:00:37) * Consider reverting decision to ban %{?_isa} in BuildRequires - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/303 (spot, 16:03:52) * ACTION: tabled, pending data around rpmbuild (spot, 16:49:56) * No_bin_deps redux - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/314 (spot, 16:50:22) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Effect_of_UsrMove â €¦ doesn't seem that bad. (geppetto, 16:56:59) * ACTION: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Effect_of_UsrMove approved as replacement for ban on /bin /sbin /lib* files. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 17:04:38) * Bundling exception for IQmol - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/332 (spot, 17:07:41) * ACTION: Request for library generation from upstream before considering copylib exception approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 17:20:24) * Create a macro for selecting the proper ruby-(abi|release) version - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/334 (spot, 17:21:15) * ACTION: tabling on RHEL adding support for the macro. (spot, 17:37:58) Meeting ended at 17:42:47 UTC. Action Items ------------ * tabled, pending data around rpmbuild * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Effect_of_UsrMove approved as replacement for ban on /bin /sbin /lib* files. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Request for library generation from upstream before considering copylib exception approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * tabling on RHEL adding support for the macro. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * tabled, pending data around rpmbuild * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Effect_of_UsrMove approved as replacement for ban on /bin /sbin /lib* files. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Request for library generation from upstream before considering copylib exception approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * tabling on RHEL adding support for the macro. People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (139) * abadger1999 (95) * geppetto (32) * RemiFedora (27) * dgilmore (22) * Smoother1rOgZ (14) * samkottler (13) * racor (8) * limburgher (7) * zodbot (3) * kalev (3) * dwa (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-08-29 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 29 Aug '13

29 Aug '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-08-29 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-08-29 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2013-08-29 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2013-08-29 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-08-29 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2013-08-29 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2013-08-29 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2013-08-29 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-08-30 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2013-08-30 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2013-08-30 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2013-08-30 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = Followups = #topic #332 Bundling exception for IQmol .fpc 332 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/332 = New business = #topic #334 Create a macro for selecting the proper ruby-(abi|release) version .fpc 334 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/334 #topic #336 Please clarify the General Naming Guidelines for packages .fpc 336 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/336 #topic #337 Guidelines needed for header only libraries .fpc 337 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/337 #topic #338 %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts .fpc 338 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 #topic #339 software collections in Fedora .fpc 339 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 #topic #340 Bundling exception for nodeunit .fpc 340 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/340 = 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.

3 2

What A Wonderful World
by poma 28 Aug '13

28 Aug '13

I see trees of green, red roses too. I see them bloom, for me and you. And I think to myself, what a wonderful world. I see skies of blue, And clouds of white. The bright blessed day, The dark sacred night. And I think to myself, What a wonderful world. The colors of the rainbow, So pretty in the sky. Are also on the faces, Of people going by, I see friends shaking hands. Saying, "How do you do?" They're really saying, "I love you". I hear babies cry, I watch them grow, They'll learn much more, Than I'll ever know. And I think to myself, What a wonderful world. Yes, I think to myself, What a wonderful world. Oh yeah. poma

3 4

Dear Fedora Packagers!
by Michael Schwendt 28 Aug '13

28 Aug '13

Dear Fedora Packagers, when renaming a package, _please_ verify that the Obsoletes tag you add to a package specifies a high enough version. Make sure the new package really replaces the last published build of the old package. Pay extra attention to our dist tag. It is part of the Release value. If the last build is something-1.0-4.fc17 you need to Obsoletes: something < 1.0-5 because 4.fc17 is higher than 4 but lower than 5. Don't ignore the dist tag. Be extra careful when the renamed package needs to be retired. Until it's retired, it may be rebuilt/updated with a bumped Release value, and your Obsoletes tag would not be high anymore. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Ex… * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Thanks for your interest. It is a reoccuring problem that both the rename request submitter *and* the reviewer get the Obsoletes tags wrong. -- Michael Schwendt Fedora release 20 (Null) - Linux 3.11.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc20.x86_64 loadavg: 0.36 0.21 0.15

1 0

LightDM patches mop up
by poma 27 Aug '13

27 Aug '13

A patch for da patch in da attach, provided. :) poma

1 1

Merging freediams into freemedforms
by Ankur Sinha 25 Aug '13

25 Aug '13

Hi, I maintain two packages for the fedora-medical SIG that fall under the "freemedforms[1]" project. At the moment, these are packaged separately: 1. freemedforms[2]: provides freemedforms-emr and pulls in freediams 2. freediams[3] Now, freemedforms-emr and freediams are both built from the same source, and use the same internal libraries. Currently, I first build freemedforms-emr and the common libraries (spec[4]) and then build freediams (spec[5]), pointing to these libraries. Recently, with the 0.9.0-beta1 release, upstream sent me a new spec and suggested I use one spec to build both freedmedforms and freediams, and provide freediams as a subpackage. I've built freemedforms already, and I'm in the process of updating freediams now. I think it's a good idea, since they'll always move hand in hand. The build process will be simpler, and so will maintaining the package and updates. What do you folks think? Should I go ahead and retire(obsolete) freediams and provide it as a subpackage in freemedforms? I don't see any issues with this, but wanted to consult you folks to be sure before I go ahead and make the changes. [1] http://freemedforms.com/en/start [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/freemedforms [3] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/freediams [4] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/freemedforms.git/tree/freemedforms.spec [5] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/freediams.git/tree/freediams.spec -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging August 2013