packaging January 2014

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

36 participants
35 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

Naming guidelines: outdated info about tilde in version
by Ville Skyttä 27 Feb '14

27 Feb '14

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag 'Non-use of tilde "~"': The outdated "it is not supported by rpm in currently supported Fedora releases." bullet point should be removed -- in fact there's no currently supported Fedora release where rpm wouldn't support it.

3 3

jquery bundling for new packages
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 02 Feb '14

02 Feb '14

TIL that there are around a thousand packages in Fedora that include a file named jquery.js... [1] Anyway it is good to see efforts to tackle these kinds of problems with the Javascript and Web Assets Guidelines. :) I want to ask if the packaging of grunt and jquery blocks current package reviews of packages that bundle jquery.js? Or can they proceed for now until jquery is actually packaged in Fedora? Jens ps It is going to be a long cleanup process to fix all those packages with bundled files. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets#Web_application_packagers

6 8

Guidelines update for "Packaging of Additional RPM Macros"
by Ville Skyttä 31 Jan '14

31 Jan '14

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional… I suggest updating the first sentence of the above paragraph to: Additional RPM macros must be stored under %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d (%{_sysconfdir}/rpm on EL < 7) directory, [...]

1 0

patches- macro
by Matthias Runge 31 Jan '14

31 Jan '14

Heya, currently, I'm facing a strange situation: In one of my packages[1], I have a moderate number of patches Patch0001: 0001-Don-t-access-the-net-while-building-docs.patch Patch0002: 0002-disable-debug-move-web-root.patch Patch0003: 0003-change-lockfile-location-to-tmp-and-also-add-localho.patch .... Instead of using %patch0001 %patch0002 etc. I wanted to give a shot to a somewhat different approach: using the %{patches} macro. Sadly, that macro is empty. I could verify, e.g by cloning the f20 branch of libguestfs, the macro and the cool approach there really works: %prep %setup -q # Use git to manage patches. # http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/nice-rpm-git-patch-management-trick/ git init git config user.email "libguestfs(a)redhat.com" git config user.name "libguestfs" git add . git commit -a -q -m "%{version} baseline" git am %{patches} So: the question is: how to debug the macro expansion? invocation is the same, for libguestfs (where it works) and for python-django-horizon, where it doesn't. Any hints or pointers are welcome! Thanks, Matthias [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-django-horizon.git/tree/python-dj…

3 3

Build Environment Consistency
by Gene 30 Jan '14

30 Jan '14

I recently posted regarding a software I developed that I wanted to get some feedback on (https://github.com/genereese/togo). I didn't hear back from anyone, so I figured that I might need to expand on exactly what information I was trying to garner from the post. A bit of my background: I started building RPMs about 7 years ago when I worked for the U.S. Court Systems. I had to take various third-party and in-house software (backup/restore/encryption programs, etc.) and figure out how to package them (and their installation processes) as RPMs. When I began, I was immediately overwhelmed by the immense amount of dry, disorganized information regarding creating even a simple "hello world" style RPM. I quickly found that there didn't seem to be a whole lot of standardization among the build environments of people who posted on the subject. After a great many hours devoted to reading mounds of information and trial and error, I was able to create my first RPM. However, it quickly became apparent that my build environment was disorganized, hard to re-use, and just plain ugly. After months of even more trial and error, I settled on a system which broke up the various components of RPM creation into (what I feel) is a much more manageable structure (something I feel most new packagers lack). I basically wrote a wrapper around the rpmbuild binary which handles all the busy-work and allowed me to focus on the layout of the software I was packaging. My RPM authoring steps are (roughly) as follows: 1) Creation of a new RPM project for whatever software I want to package up. This process sets up some sqlite helper databases to keep track of various things, sets up your .rpmmacros for the project you are currently working on, provides a 'spec' directory (will expand on that in a minute), provides a 'root' folder (which represents '/' once the RPM is installed), and folders for the meta-data which is generated during the build process. 2) Moving my software into the project. I lay out my files as I would want to see them once the RPM has been installed. So, if I had a config file and a daily cron job that needed to be run, I would create new directories under the above-mentioned 'root' directory (root/etc and root/etc/cron.daily) and then I would copy/move my files into the new directories. 3) Flag my files for inclusion in the RPM. I run a command to flag the files with their type (REGULAR, %config, %doc, etc). This command records my preferences into one of the sqlite databases that was created earlier so that when I actually want to build the package, everything is read from the database and the package is built accordingly. 4) Modify my spec file. A default spec file with common options and a pre-configured %build section (configured for my project's environment) was generated when I created the project. It is compiled from several files, all listed under the 'spec' directory. For example, the 'spec/header' file contains the most used information regarding version/release/summary/description/requirements/etc. - and separates off the other portions of the spec into other files; such as 'spec/pre' 'spec/changelog' etc. 5) Build the RPM. This is the part of the script that does the meat of the work. The script first takes the 'spec' directory and compiles it into a fully-functioning spec file, populating the %files list from the database (where you flagged your files, earlier). Once it generates the spec file, it tars up the 'root' directory tree and takes care of placing the spec/source/etc. into the red-hat required meta directories before calling 'rpmbuild -bb' against the generated spec and then moves any resulting rpms into the 'rpms' directory. The entire directory structure may then be checked into a version control system and you may simply update and rebuild the project as you desire. My goal was to provide an easy to manage/read/reuse system for introducing people to RPM building while still allowing them to be productive (not having to spend several hours just getting something that works, but is ugly, unmanageable, and difficult to expand or re-use). If you are so inclined, please try it out and let me know your thoughts: https://github.com/genereese/togo I am specifically attempting to figure out if there is some horrible flaw in this setup that I am overlooking; any thoughts in that realm would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Gene Reese

8 20

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Build Environment Consistency
by Gene 30 Jan '14

30 Jan '14

> Dude, the world doesn't have 240 countries. My apologies; I ran a quick database query and forgot to exclude territories, military bases, etc. -G

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2014-01-30 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 29 Jan '14

29 Jan '14

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at YYYY-MM-DD 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2014-01-30 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST 2014-01-30 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST 2014-01-30 17:00 Thu UTC <- 2014-01-30 17:00 Thu Europe/London <- 2014-01-30 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CET 2014-01-30 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CET 2014-01-30 22:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2014-01-31 01:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2014-01-31 01:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2014-01-31 02:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2014-01-31 03:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = Followups = (likely nothing to discuss) #topic #142 Request for changes to FPG .fpc 142 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/142 (std. bundling questions not answered) #topic #317 Bundled Library exception request for Gazebo .fpc 317 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/317 (final suggestions requested) #topic #338 %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts .fpc 338 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 (approval and retirement sections already passed, /opt exception passed) #topic #339 software collections in Fedora .fpc 339 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 (std. bundling questions not answered) #topic #340 Bundling exception for nodeunit .fpc 340 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/340 (no draft, to be closed) #topic #358 Please make some autotools guidelines. .fpc 358 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/358 #topic #382 Go Packaging Guidelines Draft .fpc 382 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/382 #topic #385 workarounds for rpm symlink <-> directory issue .fpc 385 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/385 #topic #387 Bundling exception: Heimdal bundles libtommath .fpc 387 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/387 = New business = #topic #388 recommend %autosetup over %setup .fpc 388 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/388 = 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

Adding package to RPMFusion
by Petr Hracek 29 Jan '14

29 Jan '14

Hi, I would like to get an information how to included a package into RPMFusion repo. Are there any steps or it is identical as Fedora package review. I did not find out any useful links till now. Thank you for your help and advice. Greetings Petr -- Best regards / S pozdravem Petr Hracek

4 4

FPC meeting 2014-01-30
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 29 Jan '14

29 Jan '14

Dear FPC members, I'm going to miss tomorrow's meeting due to travel. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging January 2014