packaging March 2015

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

27 participants
20 discussions

Proposal: Remove BuildRequires: exceptions from the guidelines
by Jason L Tibbitts III 08 May '15

08 May '15

TL;DR: There's a proposal for nuking the list of BuildRequires exceptions from the packaging guidelines. Important note: this is just an idea. We're not currently changing the guidelines based on this. Nothing is set in stone. It may end up that nothing happens. Don't panic. A couple of times recently, people have floated proposals to the FPC about removing certain things from the buildroot. (Specifically, perl and gcc*.) And the bottom line for these is that while FPC tries to maintain a list of BuildRequires: exceptions, this is really up to releng and whatever rpm happens to pull in at any particular time. This means that whatever list FPC maintains, it's going to get outdated eventually, and giving packagers the idea that they don't have to actually specify all of their dependencies restricts what releng can do and, perhaps, what dependencies the RPM package can drop without breaking builds. So, the generally stated proposal: I would like to get FPC out of the business of specifying this list of exceptions, and instead just indicate that packagers should completely specify their dependencies. My specific proposal can be seen in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497; the draft is at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/BuildReqDraft2. You can use the history tab to see the differences between that and the current guidelines. Now, the real issue is in what packagers can depend upon. Obviously you have RPM and an environment necessary to build a package (which means you have to have a shell to execute the scripts that make up the RPM sections, and redhat-rpm-config, and whatever RPM happens to use to execute %patch, which I guess could be some internal library if the RPM devs wanted). But what else? That's the open question. The draft currently says: --- You may assume that you have everything necessary for RPM to function and process your spec file (so of course RPM is present, along with redhat-rpm-config and what is necessary for RPM to apply patches, unpack archives, and run the shell scripts which make up the spec file sections.) You should not assume any other packages are present, as RPM dependencies and anything brought into the buildroot by the build system may change over time. --- Honestly, I'm not completely satisfied with that but I can't come up with anything better. Polite discussion is welcomed and encouraged. - J<

7 16

[rfc][icedtea-web] [policyeditor] making it aware of -verbose swithc
by Jiri Vanek 30 Mar '15

30 Mar '15

Now it will behave as other bins - javaws and itwebsettings J.

1 0

Update Java packaging guidelines to reflect current package names
by Jonathan Underwood 30 Mar '15

30 Mar '15

Hi, I've just posted ticket 521 which covers a trivial change to the guidelines: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/521 Currently the packaging guidelines for Java packages say this under the BuildRequires and Requires section: Java binary packages or their dependencies MUST have Requires (generated by RPM or manual) on: java-headless or java-headless >= 1:minimal_required_version jpackage-utils However, on modern Fedora, the jpackage-utils package has been renamed to javapackages-tools (which obsoletes and provides jpackage-utils). So, moving forward, really the guidelines should be updates to reflect this. I propose changing the bullet point which is currently jpackage-utils to javapackages-tools. I haven't made a draft for this trivial one word change. Cheers, Jonathan.

4 3

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2015-03-26 16:00 - 17:50 UTC)
by James Antill 26 Mar '15

26 Mar '15

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:26 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-03-26/fpc.2015-03-26… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:27) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:06:22) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-March/010526.html (geppetto, 16:06:26) * #515 Bundling determination and exception request (geppetto, 16:06:55) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/515 (geppetto, 16:07:01) * ACTION: Can you try to create a static library that all the components use (geppetto, 16:37:56) * #516 Bundling exception for Thymeleaf (geppetto, 16:38:03) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/516 (geppetto, 16:38:07) * ACTION: Bundling altered DTDs is fine, assuming the license allows it (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:45:54) * #518 Confusion about '+' in a package name (geppetto, 16:46:10) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/518 (geppetto, 16:46:15) * ACTION: The + here isn't a delimiter, so it's fine to use (geppetto, 17:02:56) * #519 Old filters in guidelines example (geppetto, 17:03:40) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/519 (geppetto, 17:03:45) * ACTION: Fix typo in example from __provides_filter_from to __provides_exclude_from (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:20:45) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:21:24) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Per-Product_Configuration in case anyone is wondering. (tibbs|w, 17:25:35) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/508 (tibbs|w, 17:39:19) Meeting ended at 17:53:42 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Can you try to create a static library that all the components use * Bundling altered DTDs is fine, assuming the license allows it (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * The + here isn't a delimiter, so it's fine to use * Fix typo in example from __provides_filter_from to __provides_exclude_from (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * Can you try to create a static library that all the components use * Bundling altered DTDs is fine, assuming the license allows it (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * The + here isn't a delimiter, so it's fine to use * Fix typo in example from __provides_filter_from to __provides_exclude_from (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * tibbs|w (134) * geppetto (112) * orionp (29) * tomspur (22) * mbooth (19) * Rathann (18) * sgallagh (12) * zodbot (9) * SmootherFrOgZ (5) * stbnruiz (1) * tibbs (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2015-03-26 16:00 UTC) Followup:1 New:5
by James Antill 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2015-03-26 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2015-03-26 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2015-03-26 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2015-03-26 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2015-03-26 16:00 Thu Europe/London <- 2015-03-26 17:00 Thu Europe/Paris CET 2015-03-26 17:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CET 2015-03-26 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2015-03-27 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2015-03-27 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2015-03-27 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2015-03-27 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = Followups = #topic #303 Consider reverting decision to ban %{?_isa} in BuildRequires .fpc 303 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/303 = New business = #topic #513 Use python -Es in shbang .fpc 513 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/513 #topic #515 Bundling determination and exception request .fpc 515 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/515 #topic #516 Bundling exception for Thymeleaf .fpc 516 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/516 #topic #518 Confusion about '+' in a package name .fpc 518 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/518 #topic #519 Old filters in guidelines example .fpc 519 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/519 = 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

sphinx-build to be used in %build or %install
by Parag Nemade 24 Mar '15

24 Mar '15

Hi all, I am doing review of python-oslo-context which needs to build documentation using sphinx-build command. I saw some python packages providing documentation files are calling sphinx-build in %install only. What will be the correct place to execute sphinx-build command in %build or %install? Regards, Parag.

2 1

bundling of jemalloc
by Paolo Bonzini 23 Mar '15

23 Mar '15

Firefox and xulrunner are bundling their own copy of jemalloc (try "strings /usr/lib64/xulrunner/xulrunner |grep jemalloc", or similarly with /usr/lib64/firefox/firefox-bin). Why isn't this recorded in the RPM provides (and why is there no mention of jemalloc in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries)? Are there any other known cases outside Mozilla products? I found bug 788500 about unbundling jemalloc from redis. Thanks, Paolo

3 4

Packaging a library that creates a Ruby gem...
by Darryl L. Pierce 23 Mar '15

23 Mar '15

I have two packages (qpid-cpp and qpid-proton) that, as part of their source code, can generate a Ruby gem. In both cases the Ruby gem is directly dependant on shared libraries produced by the codebase, and those gems are already packaged separately for Fedora. What I want to do is to create the gem, which is easy, and then install and package it as a subpackage, which is proving to be hard. The problem is that the %gem_install macro won't let me override where it looks for the shared libraries and header files that it needs to create its makefile. Is there a way, during the packaging process, to do this? I need to have the %gem_install macro either accept commandline options (--without-qpid-lib-dir=[path], for example) or else put things where they're discoverable by the %gem_install macro. Any help? -- Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce(a)gmail.com> http://mcpierce.blogspot.com/ Famous last words: "I wonder what happens if we do it this way?"

3 4

GenericError: file removal failed (code 11)?
by Dave Johansen 21 Mar '15

21 Mar '15

I was building llvm for the update to ocaml in EL 7.1 [1] and it failed [2]. Did I just get unlucky and had some random build failure? Or is this an issue that needs to be reported somewhere? Thanks, Dave [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204022 [2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9290228

2 3

how to handle translations problems with macro find_lang
by Martin Gansser 20 Mar '15

20 Mar '15

I am working on a review of the package xvst [1] The binary package contains translations in /usr/share/xvst/languages. Those files need to be handled by %find_lang. The package uses the strange *.language extension for the non-qm files in that directory. I tried already the following by setting %find_lang xVST --with-qt %exclude %{_datadir}/%{name}/languages/*qm The *.language files are also locale files in common sense, but find_lang isn't able to handle them. This is the last change in the rpm spec file [2] Have someone a idea how to handle this ? [1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3563 [2] https://www.dropbox.com/s/1cu7oc436ygkadx/xvst.spec?dl=0

4 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging March 2015