packaging August 2013

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

33 participants
25 discussions

Epoch:0
by Christopher Meng 06 Aug '13

06 Aug '13

Hi, I just took over a package and found this package has Epoch tag, but its value is 0. I'm not sure if I can remove it? Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

3 7

Against what package do I file this BZ?
by Darryl L. Pierce 05 Aug '13

05 Aug '13

There is at least one (likely more) scripts in use for doing mass rebuilds that are incorrectly bumping the release value. I noticed this before and brought it up in IRC but didn't file a bug then. What's going on is that the script is incrementing the release by 1 but is not rounding off the value. So, for example, from one package I maintain (perl-qpid_proton) I see the following in the %changelog: * Sun Aug 04 2013 Fedora Release Engineering * <rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> - 0.4-3.1 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass_Rebuild * Mon Jul 22 2013 Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> - 0.4-2.1 - Perl 5.18 rebuild * Mon Apr 1 2013 Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com> - 0.4-1.1 - Changed the qpid-proton dependency to qpid-proton-c. - Changed the qpid-proton-devel dependency to qpid-proton-c-devel. * Fri Mar 1 2013 Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com> - 0.4-1 - Rebased on Proton 0.4. The scripts doing these mass rebuilds ought to be doing something lik: release = floor(current_release + 1) rather than just bumping by 1. -- Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce(a)gmail.com> http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/ "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

4 8

Confirmation on package rename
by Simone Caronni 03 Aug '13

03 Aug '13

Hello, can someone please tell me if I understood correctly the packaging guidelines regarding packages being retired after a rename [1]? Upstream has changed between minor releases how the source code is packaged. Instead of multiple source tarballs there is only one tarball that is used to generate the same packages as before; so the update is for all branches. Should I run "fedpkg retire <explanation>" in each branch that is going to be obsolete by the new packages AFTER the new packages [2] hit stable, right? Thanks, much appreciated. --Simone [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-13687/guacamole-client-… -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). http://xkcd.com/229/ http://negativo17.org/

2 2

SPEC files with scl_prefix macro in Fedora
by Lukas Zapletal 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Hello, I was searching around a bit on the wiki and in list archives, but without any luck, so asking here. He have several dozens of packages (mostly Ruby packages) prepared for our projects (Foreman, Katello, Pulp, Candlepin and few others). We already submitted and maintain some packages in Fedora, but our plan is to make our SPEC files compliant and start submitting all of them over the time. The only issue is we need to keep our SCL macros (maily scl_prefix and few others) in our packages, because as you can see [1] it is pretty inconvenient to maintain those as a separate branches or patch sets (the scl_prefix is spread all over the SPEC file causing lots of conflicts). I have been trying to find some information about SCL macros and if these are allowed in SPEC files in Fedora. We are willing to submit packages and maintain them of course, but before we start pushing review request, I would like to be clear if this is not prohibited from Fedora. Of course, I understand SCL is not allowed as described here [2], but the issue I am writing about is only about having some macros in our SPEC files which are left unexpanded in Fedora Koji of course. The main drawback is readability which is worse in this case. On the other hand, if unexpanded macros are not prohibited, SCL should make no difference. If they are, I'd like to start conversation about possibility to make an exception for this case. I would like to read your opinions about that and if there is no document allowing these macros, I'd like to ask to help me to create one. We need an official document which can be used during reviews in case there are doubts about the SCL macros. Thank you for your help. [1] - http://bit.ly/13rzLFF (example of a SCL enabled Ruby package) [2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SoftwareCollections -- Later, Lukas "lzap" Zapletal irc: lzap #theforeman

2 2

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-08-01 16:00 - 17:40 UTC)
by James Antill 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 15:29:08 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-08-01/fpc.2013-08-01… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 15:29:14) * Node.js guidelines update - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/311 (spot, 15:32:44) * ACTION: Draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 15:52:47) * BuildRequires: pkgconfig(foo) - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/320 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgConfigBuildRequires (spot, 15:53:33) * ACTION: revised draft approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:00:43) * Web Assets - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/323 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/Web_Assets (spot, 16:01:43) * Poor Packaging:CronFiles guidelines - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/324 (spot, 16:19:53) * ACTION: improved wording (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:32:55) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/261#comment:8 (abadger1999, 16:35:51) * Temporary bundling exception of yajl library - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/325 (spot, 16:44:58) * Bundling exception for python-kapteyn - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/326 (spot, 16:46:42) * ACTION: limburgher will follow up to get questions answered (spot, 16:50:36) * Python shebangs should not point to /usr/bin/python - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/327 (spot, 16:50:51) * Open Floor (spot, 17:09:23) Meeting ended at 17:11:22 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * revised draft approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * improved wording (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * limburgher will follow up to get questions answered Action Items, by person ----------------------- * limburgher * limburgher will follow up to get questions answered * **UNASSIGNED** * Draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * revised draft approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * improved wording (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (89) * abadger1999 (64) * tibbs|w (39) * geppetto (35) * limburgher (31) * RemiFedora (21) * dwmw2 (21) * Smoother1rOgZ (7) * zodbot (3) * ignatenkobrain (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging August 2013