packaging February 2015

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

23 participants
20 discussions

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2015-02-12 17:00 - 19:15 UTC)
by James Antill 12 Feb '15

12 Feb '15

====================== #fedora-meeting-2: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 17:05:02 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-02-12/fpc.2015-02-12… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 17:05:21) * #126 bundling exception for scintilla (geppetto, 17:07:14) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/126 (geppetto, 17:07:18) * LINK: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Wx-Scintilla.spec -> 404 (orionp, 17:19:23) * ACTION: tibbs try to find what's bundling scintilla, and try to do a rundown of what would need an exception. (geppetto, 17:19:26) * #202 Application for exemption from "No bundling" rule: Gargoyle (geppetto, 17:19:54) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/202 (geppetto, 17:19:59) * ACTION: Still no, close and reopen if someone wants to start afresh (geppetto, 17:26:45) * #221 Bundling exception request: numptyphysics and Box2D (geppetto, 17:26:55) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/221 (geppetto, 17:26:59) * ACTION: postpone until limburgher is at the meeting. (geppetto, 17:28:09) * #235 exception for bundling a library into uif2iso package (geppetto, 17:28:19) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/235 (geppetto, 17:28:23) * ACTION: Just close this out, open a new ticket if someone wants to start afresh (geppetto, 17:32:26) * #338 %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts (geppetto, 17:32:45) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 (geppetto, 17:32:49) * ACTION: tibbs Restate the proposal as a policy change, so we can vote on it (geppetto, 17:38:36) * #346 Bundling exception request for Eclipse Sisu (geppetto, 17:38:56) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/346 (geppetto, 17:39:02) * ACTION: No bundling, do the automatic re-namespacing in sub-package fix. (geppetto, 17:42:00) * #381 Bundling exception for python-matplotlib fonts (geppetto, 17:42:11) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/381 (geppetto, 17:42:17) * ACTION: Everything going as planned, excellent. Can close. (geppetto, 17:47:01) * #399 request for bundled library exception - clustal omega (geppetto, 17:47:11) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/399 (geppetto, 17:47:16) * ACTION: request for bundled library exception - clustal omega (+1:5, 0:1, -1:0) (geppetto, 18:02:06) * #401 (reverse) bundling exception for stream-lib (geppetto, 18:02:25) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/401 (geppetto, 18:02:30) * ACTION: bundling/forking of cassandra bloom filters for stream-lib (+1:5, 0:1, -1:1) (geppetto, 18:13:24) * #426 Need policy and macros for binfmt.d file handling (geppetto, 18:13:35) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/426 (geppetto, 18:13:40) * ACTION: Seems to be obsolete by the new wording we have for binfmt_apply. (geppetto, 18:29:49) * #435 %py3dir not removed by rpmbuild --clean (geppetto, 18:29:59) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/435 (geppetto, 18:30:04) * ACTION: Rathann Will prepare a draft we can vote on for next week (geppetto, 18:37:48) * Open Floor (geppetto, 18:38:00) * ACTION: Everyone should try to respond with some of their thoughts on the ring packages thread. (geppetto, 19:11:31) Meeting ended at 19:18:00 UTC. Action Items ------------ * tibbs try to find what's bundling scintilla, and try to do a rundown of what would need an exception. * Still no, close and reopen if someone wants to start afresh * postpone until limburgher is at the meeting. * Just close this out, open a new ticket if someone wants to start afresh * tibbs Restate the proposal as a policy change, so we can vote on it * No bundling, do the automatic re-namespacing in sub-package fix. * Everything going as planned, excellent. Can close. * request for bundled library exception - clustal omega (+1:5, 0:1, -1:0) * bundling/forking of cassandra bloom filters for stream-lib (+1:5, 0:1, -1:1) * Seems to be obsolete by the new wording we have for binfmt_apply. * Rathann Will prepare a draft we can vote on for next week * Everyone should try to respond with some of their thoughts on the ring packages thread. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * Rathann * Rathann Will prepare a draft we can vote on for next week * **UNASSIGNED** * tibbs try to find what's bundling scintilla, and try to do a rundown of what would need an exception. * Still no, close and reopen if someone wants to start afresh * postpone until limburgher is at the meeting. * Just close this out, open a new ticket if someone wants to start afresh * tibbs Restate the proposal as a policy change, so we can vote on it * No bundling, do the automatic re-namespacing in sub-package fix. * Everything going as planned, excellent. Can close. * request for bundled library exception - clustal omega (+1:5, 0:1, -1:0) * bundling/forking of cassandra bloom filters for stream-lib (+1:5, 0:1, -1:1) * Seems to be obsolete by the new wording we have for binfmt_apply. * Everyone should try to respond with some of their thoughts on the ring packages thread. People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (156) * tibbs|w (133) * sgallagh (40) * Rathann (39) * tomspur (26) * mbooth (20) * zodbot (10) * racor (6) * orionp (3) * willb (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

[Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies
by Stephen Gallagher 12 Feb '15

12 Feb '15

(Logistical note: please keep all replies to this thread on devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org) tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for packages that are not present on Product or Spin install media? == Premise == So, some time ago, we started talking about dividing up the Fedora package set into a series of "rings". One of the driving purposes behind this idea was to re-evaluate our policies for packaging in each of these rings. A fair amount of time has passed and no formal discussions have taken place (that I have seen, at any rate), so I'm going to provide here a simple "starter" proposal that we can work from and see where it leads. To begin, I'll try to identify some of the major advantages and disadvantages in our current policies. (In no particular order...) === Advantages === * Consistency: every shared library, language-specific module and application should have packaging consistent with others in its category. This makes it easier for comaintainers and provenpackagers to pick it up and work on it. * The no-bundled-libraries policy means that when a library module requires an update, it means that only one package needs to be modified in order to enhance all applications on the system that consumes it. This is a significant time-saver when it comes to dealing with (increasingly common) security vulnerabilities. * Package review "front-loads" the task of educating the packagers. It guarantees that packages enter the collection by meeting a very high standard. This does a great deal to accomplish the "consistency" mentioned above. * Legal review and the FPCA ensures that Fedora remains true to its "Freedom" Foundation (as well as protecting Fedora contributors from the perils of the international legal system). === Disadvantages === * Very strict policies often leads to potential packagers giving up. * Package reviews for less-interesting packages (such as those for less popular SIGs) often remain un-reviewed for weeks, months or even years. * The package policies are only ever reviewed during the initial creation of the package. Once that initial (high) hurdle is cleared, the packager essentially has free reign to do whatever they want with their package. This sometimes means that as time passes, the spec files "bit-rot" or otherwise start accumulating other inconsistencies. (A common example is the package whose upstream starts bundling a library without the packager noticing). * Many upstream projects do not concern themselves with being "in" any particular distribution (with the notable example being the Debian/Ubuntu flavors which have amassed a sufficient apparent userbase that they sometimes get special treatment). For a variety of reasons, this often leads directly to bundling the vast majority of their dependencies. This is done for many reasons, but the two most common are supportability and portability; it's impossible for many upstreams to actually QA their package with every possible distro library. Instead, if they ship everything they depend on, they can guarantee *that* specific combination. This moves the responsibility from the distribution to the upstream package to maintain their bundled libraries. * With many languages, there is no possibility of installing multiple versions of the same library on the same system, so if an application requires a newer or older version of the library than is in Fedora to run, it fails. For those languages that *do* allow this, it still adds a significant maintenance burden on the packagers to keep multiple versions of the same package up-to-date (which gets particularly hard when upstream abandons a version that something else in Fedora depends on...) == Analysis == First, I will make an assumption based on the "First" Foundation: We as the Fedora Project want people to have access to the software that they desire. We may disagree on how that is to be achieved, but I believe the goal is the same. Second, I will call attention to the fact that different Fedora users have very different needs from the software. For example, those running Fedora Server and Fedora Cloud are likely far more concerned with Fedora as a *deployment* platform than they are as a *development* platform. Folks running Fedora Workstation or the KDE spin are likely to be somewhat more interested in the development side of things (though not exclusively). Packaging software for development and packaging it for real-world deployment can be very different. I'm not going to attempt to identify all the ways that this can be the case in this email. Others have done so with great verbosity in the past and I will not attempt to re-hash them. Thirdly, I will note (again) that many upstream projects have moved away from a distro-centric model. This is in part because unlike in the past, there are a great many distributions out there now, all with individual packaging requirements to be inside those distros. Taken in concert with the behaviors of many of the language repositories (like Python, Ruby and Node.js), it is simply *easier* and *faster* to just have your package carry whatever it needs with it. As I also mentioned above, the inflexibility of Fedora in carrying multiple versions of the same packages means that in many cases, we are *incapable* of providing a popular or interesting package in our repos. This also serves to drive potential users to other distributions. == Proposal == With these things in mind, I'd like to propose that we amend the packaging policy by splitting it into two forms: === Core Packages === Any package that is provided on a release-blocking medium (which at present includes Fedora Atomic, Fedora Cloud, Fedora Server, Fedora Workstation, the KDE Spin and several ARM images) must comply exactly with the packaging guidelines as they are written today. These packages must receive a full package review *when they are added to the install media*. Any package present on the media if this proposal is adopted is exempted from this requirement. Any package to newly appear on the install media after this time *should* (I hate that word...) receive a new package review, even if it is already present in Fedora. === Ring Packages === Any new package that is *not* going to be part of the install media set is required to pass a lighter review and is permitted to carry bundled libraries, with caveats to be listed below. ==== Ring Package Review Requirements ==== * A reviewer *MUST* establish suitability for the Fedora Project. This means verifying that the package contains only permissible content (legally-speaking). * The package *MUST* conform to the FHS and other filesystem conventions used by Fedora (such as %{python3_sitelib}), except when granted an exception by the FPC. * The package *MAY* contain bundled libraries or other projects, but if it does so, it *MUST* contain a "Provides: bundled(pkg) = version" for each such bundling. This is done so that we can use the meta-data to identify which packages may be vulnerable in the event of a security issue. == Conclusion == So that is my proposal to consider for Fedora 23+ (it's too late in the Fedora 22 cycle to consider this, but I'd prefer starting the F23 discussion right away). Comments and suggestions are strongly encouraged. Thank you for reading to the end.

1 0

mock build - python setup.py test fails
by Martin Gansser 12 Feb '15

12 Feb '15

2 2

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2015-02-12 17:00 UTC) Followup:18 New:0
by James Antill 11 Feb '15

11 Feb '15

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2015-02-12 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2015-02-12 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST 2015-02-12 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST 2015-02-12 17:00 Thu UTC <- 2015-02-12 17:00 Thu Europe/London <- 2015-02-12 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CET 2015-02-12 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CET 2015-02-12 22:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2015-02-13 01:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2015-02-13 01:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2015-02-13 02:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2015-02-13 03:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = Followups = (needed policy, feature not accepted yet) #topic #466 recommend Privatedevices and PrivateNetwork in systemd guidelines .fpc 466 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/466 (needinfo, just package dep?) #topic #468 Temporary modernizr packing exception for kimchi .fpc 468 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/468 (add examples for common libs.) #topic #480 Packaging guidelines for consistent PKCS#11 usage .fpc 480 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/480 #topic #493 Bundling exception: python-execnet bundles python-apipkg .fpc 493 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/493 #topic #495 Proposal: Package Guidelines: PreupgradeAssistant contents packages .fpc 495 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/495 #topic #497 Clean up BuildRequires section; don't try to define the minimal build env .fpc 497 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 #topic #498 Seeking guidance: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL .fpc 498 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/498 = Ye Ancient tickets (zombie followups) = #topic #126 bundling exception for scintilla .fpc 126 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/126 #topic #202 Application for exemption from "No bundling" rule: Gargoyle .fpc 202 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/202 #topic #221 Bundling exception request: numptyphysics and Box2D .fpc 221 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/221 #topic #235 exception for bundling a library into uif2iso package .fpc 235 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/235 #topic #338 %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts .fpc 338 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 #topic #346 Bundling exception request for Eclipse Sisu .fpc 346 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/346 #topic #381 Bundling exception for python-matplotlib fonts .fpc 381 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/381 #topic #399 request for bundled library exception - clustal omega .fpc 399 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/399 #topic #401 (reverse) bundling exception for stream-lib .fpc 401 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/401 #topic #426 Need policy and macros for binfmt.d file handling .fpc 426 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/426 #topic #435 %py3dir not removed by rpmbuild --clean .fpc 435 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/435 = 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/13 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

fedpkg build: failed to connect
by Brad Bell 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

In response to the command fedpkg build I got: BEGIN response Building cppad-20150000.4-3.el6 for el6-candidate Created task: 8873024 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8873024 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 8873024 build (el6-candidate, /cppad:7fcb1f5a1c94ec54ed9ff8d63dae22bcb1d1e2bb): open (arm04-builder08.arm.fedoraproject.org) 8873025 buildSRPMFromSCM (/cppad:7fcb1f5a1c94ec54ed9ff8d63dae22bcb1d1e2bb): free 8873025 buildSRPMFromSCM (/cppad:7fcb1f5a1c94ec54ed9ff8d63dae22bcb1d1e2bb): free -> open (buildhw-05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) Could not execute build: failed to connect END response Now when I look at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8873024 it says the task it open and when I look at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/ the task is missing, But is is present at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5524 How should I proceed ?

1 1

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2015-02-05 17:00 - 18:25 UTC)
by James Antill 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 17:02:54 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-02-05/fpc.2015-02-05… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 17:02:54) * #494 Python3 __pycache__ directory (geppetto, 17:06:03) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/494 (geppetto, 17:06:09) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/PycacheDraft#Byte_compiling (tibbs|w, 17:07:15) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATibbs% 2FPycacheDraft&diff=402243&oldid=402019 (tibbs|w, 17:07:20) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATibbs% 2FPycacheDraft&diff=402245&oldid=402019 (tomspur, 17:10:08) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATibbs% 2FPycacheDraft&diff=402245&oldid=402243 (geppetto, 17:11:26) * ACTION: Policy for py3k __pycache__ dir. by tibbs with edits by tomspur/orionp (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:17:49) * #497 Clean up BuildRequires section; don't try to define the minimal build env (geppetto, 17:23:12) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 (geppetto, 17:23:14) * ACTION: Nuke rpmdev-rmdevelrpms section (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:31:43) * #498 Seeking guidance: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL (geppetto, 17:32:04) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/498 (geppetto, 17:32:08) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/327#comment:9 (abadger1999, 18:07:01) * ACTION: tomspur Tweak wording of comment 5 for vote next week. (geppetto, 18:14:57) * Open Floor (geppetto, 18:18:16) Meeting ended at 18:25:55 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Policy for py3k __pycache__ dir. by tibbs with edits by tomspur/orionp (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Nuke rpmdev-rmdevelrpms section (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * tomspur Tweak wording of comment 5 for vote next week. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * orionp * Policy for py3k __pycache__ dir. by tibbs with edits by tomspur/orionp (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * tomspur * Policy for py3k __pycache__ dir. by tibbs with edits by tomspur/orionp (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * tomspur Tweak wording of comment 5 for vote next week. * **UNASSIGNED** * Nuke rpmdev-rmdevelrpms section (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (128) * tibbs|w (101) * abadger1999 (56) * tomspur (29) * zodbot (9) * orionp (7) * mbooth (6) * SmootherFrOgZ (3) * racor (2) * gholms (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2015-02-05 17:00 UTC) Followup:16 New:3
by James Antill 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2015-02-05 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2015-02-05 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST 2015-02-05 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST 2015-02-05 17:00 Thu UTC <- 2015-02-05 17:00 Thu Europe/London <- 2015-02-05 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CET 2015-02-05 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CET 2015-02-05 22:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2015-02-06 01:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2015-02-06 01:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2015-02-06 02:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2015-02-06 03:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = Followups = (needed policy, feature not accepted yet) #topic #466 recommend Privatedevices and PrivateNetwork in systemd guidelines .fpc 466 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/466 (needinfo, just package dep?) #topic #468 Temporary modernizr packing exception for kimchi .fpc 468 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/468 (add examples for common libs.) #topic #480 Packaging guidelines for consistent PKCS#11 usage .fpc 480 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/480 #topic #493 Bundling exception: python-execnet bundles python-apipkg .fpc 493 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/493 #topic #495 Proposal: Package Guidelines: PreupgradeAssistant contents packages .fpc 495 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/495 = Ye Ancient tickets (zombie followups) = #topic #126 bundling exception for scintilla .fpc 126 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/126 #topic #202 Application for exemption from "No bundling" rule: Gargoyle .fpc 202 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/202 #topic #221 Bundling exception request: numptyphysics and Box2D .fpc 221 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/221 #topic #235 exception for bundling a library into uif2iso package .fpc 235 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/235 (unlikely, but needinfo) #topic #304 asking for bundling exception for the package "rubygem-rdiscount" .fpc 304 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/304 #topic #338 %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts .fpc 338 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 #topic #346 Bundling exception request for Eclipse Sisu .fpc 346 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/346 #topic #381 Bundling exception for python-matplotlib fonts .fpc 381 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/381 #topic #399 request for bundled library exception - clustal omega .fpc 399 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/399 #topic #401 (reverse) bundling exception for stream-lib .fpc 401 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/401 #topic #426 Need policy and macros for binfmt.d file handling .fpc 426 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/426 #topic #435 %py3dir not removed by rpmbuild --clean .fpc 435 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/435 = New business = #topic #494 Python3 __pycache__ directory .fpc 494 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/494 #topic #497 Clean up BuildRequires section; don't try to define the minimal build env .fpc 497 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 #topic #498 Seeking guidance: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL .fpc 498 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/498 = 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/13 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

Should release number (DistTag) agree between branches ?
by Brad Bell 04 Feb '15

04 Feb '15

I have the case where the master (rawhide) has the following verison and release Version: 20150000.4 Release: 2%{?dist} The other branches have not had any builds with this version of the upstream source. It it correct to just merge the master into origin/f21 and then push as http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintenance_guide might be suggesting ? Perhaps I should change the release to Release: 1%{?dist} and the log from * Sun Feb 01 2015 Brad Bell <bradbell at seanet dot com> - 20150000.4-2 to * Sun Feb 01 2015 Brad Bell <bradbell at seanet dot com> - 20150000.4-1

4 4

Re: [Fedora-packaging] nodejs-ws - should I change it to a noarch
by Stephen Gallagher 04 Feb '15

04 Feb '15

(Sorry for top-post) I'm forwarding this to the packaging list for input on the arch-to-noarch question. On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 10:42 -0600, Troy Dawson wrote: > Hi All, > I was going through, updating my nodejs package for rawhide (f22) when I > found the nodejs-ws went from binary to pure javascript with version 0.7.1. > > So, my question is this. Do I continue to leave it as an arch, so I > don't break thing, so should I go to noarch. > > Switching from an arch to a noarch has bitten me in the past when people > do updates. I don't know if that is still the case. > > What are people's thoughts. Should I switch it to a noarch? > I'm not planning on backporting this to older distributions if that > matters in the decision. > > Thanks > Troy Dawson > > p.s. Side note - This update also requires nodejs-ultron, if anyone > wants to do a review request. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188763 > > p.p.s. If there is already a fedora page explaining arch to noarch > policies, that would be great. Feel free to point me to it. > _______________________________________________ > nodejs mailing list > nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/nodejs

4 3

missing the FPC meeting on Feb 5th
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 03 Feb '15

03 Feb '15

Dear FPC, I'm very likely going to miss the next FPC meeting due to travel for DevConf. Regards, -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org "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 February 2015