packaging September 2013

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

47 participants
34 discussions

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-09-19 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 18 Sep '13

18 Sep '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-09-19 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-09-19 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2013-09-19 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2013-09-19 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-09-19 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2013-09-19 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2013-09-19 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2013-09-19 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-09-20 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2013-09-20 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2013-09-20 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2013-09-20 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = Followups = (likely tabled until next week) #topic #339 software collections in Fedora .fpc 339 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 = New business = #topic #344 Wrong library name conflicts solution .fpc 344 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/344 #topic #345 Ruby guidelines: Filtering automatic provides .fpc 345 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/345 = 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

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-09-12 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-09-12 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-09-12 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2013-09-12 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2013-09-12 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-09-12 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2013-09-12 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2013-09-12 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2013-09-12 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-09-13 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2013-09-13 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2013-09-13 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2013-09-13 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = New business = #topic #339 software collections in Fedora .fpc 339 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 #topic #344 Wrong library name conflicts solution .fpc 344 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/344 = 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

Use of devtoolset in Koji builds for EPEL?
by Dave Johansen 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

Along the lines of (or maybe as part of) the recent discussion of SCLs ( https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-September/009525.h… ), are there any plans to enable the use of the devtoolset ( https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/Red_Hat_Developer_Toolset/ ) in Koji builds for EPEL? I know that they require developer subscriptions for access to them, but it would be nice if packages could be created that used them in the EPEL so that those with access could use the packages with the improved features of the devtoolset. For example, I am working on packaging odb ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975310 ), but it requires gcc 4.5 or greater and that is only available on RL 5/6 through the devtoolset. So if it was possible to build on Koji using the devtoolset, then it would enable those with access to it, to make use of the mentioned odb packages on EL 5/6. Is this sort of thing part of the current discussion for SCL packaging? If not, then what can I do to help enable that discussion? Thanks, Dave

2 1

I'm curious about its release number
by Christopher Meng 16 Sep '13

16 Sep '13

Hi, I'm curious about the release tag of python-libcloud. Currently dbruno writes down: 2013-09-09 - Daniel Bruno <dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org> - 0.13.1-10 2013-07-01 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.13.0-9 2013-05-16 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.12.4-8 2013-03-26 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.12.3-6 2013-02-19 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.12.1-5 2012-10-10 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.11.3-4 2012-08-02 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.11.1-3 2012-06-15 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.9.1-2 2012-04-16 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.9.1-1 2012-03-26 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.8.0-4 Well, It should be something like 0.9.1-1, 0.10.1-1, 0.12.3-1, release number should not get bumped when packaging a newer version. If you think I'm right I will go to bugzilla and file a bug. Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

2 2

Disabling auto update functionality
by Richard Fearn 15 Sep '13

15 Sep '13

Hi, Are there any specific packaging guidelines related to software that has auto update functionality built in? I am mainly interested in whether it's allowable to just disable this at runtime (if the software allows it), or if it needs to be removed at compile time. Regards, Rich -- Richard Fearn richardfearn(a)gmail.com

2 1

InitialCC for new packages?
by Christopher Meng 13 Sep '13

13 Sep '13

Hi, In these days this problem are hitting more and more people, I can see many SIGs on the page, but is it compulsory/mandatory for all packagers to add CC to some SIGs? I can't see any reference in the PG, only in Package SCM admin requests page. Also is this list up-to-dated? Like if new SIGs are founded, should we revise the PG also? e.g. design-software. Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

4 4

Fedora Packaging guidelines for LibreOffice's extensions
by Antonio Trande 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all. Are there Fedora Packaging guidelines specific for LibreOffice's extensions ? I've only seen those for OpenOffice (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OpenOffice.orgExtensions). - -- - ---- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitter(a)fedoraproject.org http://www.fedoraos.worpress.com https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: D400D6C4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSMetHAAoJED2vIvfUANbE48gP/iw5s+HUjSNwf+osnqGEsGcI tj2GG7I3Nhse/ZvRq1qNFjrpXA1bKJSvHFoo4pZ+ZGVh/O3g+a1VJtxC0ru7z+XB PUq6DTBdpdRdsm2cIc82UohqwQH4AfBChpbDuNHtC9ctg2x17NOHAVqV6e97ZgbE Pfq26uBxy4DUoJR3gfsdT2jYdsNhsUJg6RkfqBanoVY7oi+Fjd9nGynomqoAotP4 3BWs4fl+SXO/rp7CFG4ubKBRMTkYV4X05qL80qFXTZQrsREk7V08OQOvHM4c50LS 7K4NZM1z0mcb85jcsmPnQNAf0IWWOEoWf5AHlulMVp7rwODwAA6G3ugLWn8Z8aWA 4iiatztioFgdGiGKYHEQ0/SbEzE9xFigSSw6VszBCATON8B/LA3e5BebIH4w1wkD vEGKTcNIALqwFXkxrsBVoqWPA3SxlTPGPW1xVeAz63uDTOtWvLvUCmVjIPNrdqTq uL++g0tiWT7PcH64xgi5JlTljL97lT6lf2SLysncfLrcRNgL2/JUZKwwiqp5hJN2 0hl8R4lGGQqBUnqRKUxNxY8GYRlcjwYGE7kVF+zyImQKO5+kvtcv5N89T0okJOQP 4HyjnN2/WINAwIDBZfOw0tOfZojdwVT7dcV6G8iFKae8BDtcARfemNpEvt5r99Wv rYbNmJwUJ0PcJzyzXn8O =FaHs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Should .so files under python site dir be 755 perms?
by Christopher Meng 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

Hi, I have a python-pygit2 review, in this review the reviewer asked me to change the perms of the .so files from 755 to 644. In fact I've done this for many other packages, but I want to ask if this is really needed? I've asked pygit2 upstream at: https://github.com/libgit2/pygit2/issues/259 They said that pillow has 755 perms so files, too. So I ran: [rpmaker@fab PIL]$ ls -al|grep .so -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 15768 8月 29 19:30 _imagingcms.so -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 15976 8月 29 19:30 _imagingft.so -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 18732 8月 29 19:30 _imagingmath.so -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 290820 8月 29 19:30 _imaging.so -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 10524 8月 29 19:30 _imagingtk.so -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 10548 8月 29 19:30 _webp.so Well seems they are 755, too. What should I do now? Thanks in advance. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

4 8

Wiki How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25check_section
by Michael Schwendt 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

In reply to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/982351 > > Referring to rpmlint, your package is OK. But shouldn't be the %check > > section after %install? Maybe it is important to run the tests after > > installation. All Python packages I've reviewed do so. > > It is actually documented[1] that %check follows %build, also tests run in the > builddir directory, code installed in buildrootdir is not used. > I guess other packages follow rpmbuild execution order which runs %check after > %install no matter what order is it in spec. > There are also other Fedora py rpms which have %build %check %install order > e.g. > > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25check_section That HowTo says: | [...] the %check section (which immediately follows the %build section) Why is that? IMO, %check should be placed after the %install section, because rpmbuild executes it after %install. And because in some cases one performs tests on the files in %buildroot rather than uninstalled files in the builddir. Is there any good reason why to put it after %build?

3 3

Different source / binary package names
by Orion Poplawski 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

I'm starting to package more of the X2Go stuff and running into some Debianisms. Namely different source and binary package names. For example: The source package "x2goplasmabingings" with source tarball x2goplasmabindings-3.0.1.5.tar.gz produces a binary package called "plasma-widget-x2go" (which matches the way other plasma widgets are named). So, is a package like: Name: x2goplasmabindings Summary: Plasma widget for control X2go sessions %description %description -n plasma-widget-x2go X2go is a server-based computing environment with - session resuming - low bandwidth support - LDAP support - client side mass storage mounting support - audio support - authentication by smartcard and USB stick This package adds a plasma widget (KDE4) for controlling your X2go session. %package -n plasma-widget-x2go Summary: %{summary} %description -n plasma-widget-x2go X2go is a server-based computing environment with - session resuming - low bandwidth support - LDAP support - client side mass storage mounting support - audio support - authentication by smartcard and USB stick This package adds a plasma widget (KDE4) for controlling your X2go session. %files -n plasma-widget-x2go -f plasma_applet_x2goplasmoid.lang ... Okay? Is there a way to avoid repeating the description? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com

2 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging September 2013