packaging April 2015

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

29 participants
22 discussions

Start a nNew thread

critical path security update policy
by Jerry Bratton 21 Apr '15

21 Apr '15

6 30

Re: [Fedora-packaging] critical path security update policy
by Jerry Bratton 18 Apr '15

18 Apr '15

>> I'm concerned about how long it takes security updates to make it to users >> under Fedora's current policies (which generally allow such updates the >> possibility of sitting in testing for 14 days, or even longer). >> >> Just one example is the Firefox 37.0.1 update for Fedora 20: >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5723/firefox-37.0.1-1.f… >> >> The currently available version of Firefox in Fedora 20 has a critical >> vulnerability which allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to impersonate any >> HTTPS website. In this context, shouldn't security concerns win out over the >> worry that there might be some regression? We already know there's a serious >> problem in the current package, so why do we have to wait 14 days just >> because there might be some problem in the new package? >> >> Shouldn't this policy be revised? > >I thought a packager already has the ability to push something to >stable without any delay? It's just not the default. Is that >incorrect? > >I think in the case of an upstream like FireFox where we can pretty >much be assured that they've escalated a critical security update >before any other pending updates, that it's completely reasonable for >the packager to take advantage of any policy that lets them bypass >updates-testing. I don't know whether that's correct or not. If it is true, Stransky, could you take that approach in future instances? In any case, this is not an issue specific to one particular update or one particular maintainer. Perhaps there should be a checkbox for "this is a security update ONLY" that would allow an update to bypass the updates testing repository?

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2015-04-16 16:00 - 17:25 UTC)
by James Antill 16 Apr '15

16 Apr '15

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:01:45 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-04-16/fpc.2015-04-16… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:01:45) * #524 static UID for ceph (geppetto, 16:12:49) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524 (geppetto, 16:12:55) * ACTION: A link/summary of the upstream discussion of how this will be used, might be nice. Currently split on how this is useful. (geppetto, 16:40:57) * #522 Should -static packages require -devel (geppetto, 16:41:24) * ACTION: was voted on last week, and policy changed. (geppetto, 16:48:06) * #515 Bundling determination and exception request (geppetto, 16:49:16) * ACTION: Create a static. lib., decide among yourself who will own it. Size exception is based on the bundling size (and xmlrpcpp is big). (geppetto, 16:58:58) * #520 [Guidelines Draft] Per-Product Configuration Defaults v2 (geppetto, 16:59:10) * ACTION: sgallagh just do the macro change, and update the draft. We'll vote on it next week. (geppetto, 17:13:59) * #513 Use python -Es in shbang (geppetto, 17:14:06) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:17:19) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sgallagh/Per-Product_Configuration_Pack… (sgallagh, 17:20:34) Meeting ended at 17:25:49 UTC. Action Items ------------ * A link/summary of the upstream discussion of how this will be used, might be nice. Currently split on how this is useful. * was voted on last week, and policy changed. * Create a static. lib., decide among yourself who will own it. Size exception is based on the bundling size (and xmlrpcpp is big). * sgallagh just do the macro change, and update the draft. We'll vote on it next week. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * sgallagh * sgallagh just do the macro change, and update the draft. We'll vote on it next week. * **UNASSIGNED** * A link/summary of the upstream discussion of how this will be used, might be nice. Currently split on how this is useful. * was voted on last week, and policy changed. * Create a static. lib., decide among yourself who will own it. Size exception is based on the bundling size (and xmlrpcpp is big). People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * tibbs|w (108) * geppetto (93) * zodbot (14) * Rathann (12) * sgallagh (11) * racor (9) * tomspur (6) * rdieter (4) * nirik (4) * tibbs (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2015-04-17 16:00 UTC) Followups:6 New:2
by James Antill 16 Apr '15

16 Apr '15

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2015-04-17 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2015-04-17 09:00 Fri US/Pacific PDT 2015-04-17 12:00 Fri US/Eastern EDT 2015-04-17 16:00 Fri UTC <- 2015-04-17 17:00 Fri Europe/London BST 2015-04-17 18:00 Fri Europe/Paris CEST 2015-04-17 18:00 Fri Europe/Berlin CEST 2015-04-17 21:30 Fri Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2015-04-18 00:00 Sat Asia/Singapore SGT 2015-04-18 00:00 Sat Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2015-04-18 01:00 Sat Asia/Tokyo JST 2015-04-18 02:00 Sat Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = Followups = #topic #281 New Python Macros for Easier Packaging .fpc 281 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/281 #topic #303 Consider reverting decision to ban %{?_isa} in BuildRequires .fpc 303 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/303 #topic #508 New GID for openstack-neutron .fpc 508 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/508 #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 #520 [Guidelines Draft] Per-Product Configuration Defaults v2 .fpc 520 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/520 = New business = #topic #522 Should -static packages require -devel .fpc 522 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/522 #topic #524 static UID for ceph .fpc 524 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524 = 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

how to delete koji build
by Martin Gansser 12 Apr '15

12 Apr '15

i have a question regarding koji builds on https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=20227 how can i delete this builds ? i've tried it with this command, but no success, because i get no feedback from the command. $ koji untag-pkg f22 libskindesignerapi-0.0.1-2

3 4

Source files of official RPM packages
by Martin Cigorraga 12 Apr '15

12 Apr '15

Hello all, I'm looking to contribute with my own packages through a Copr repository so to start I would like to check out how others build their own packages, where can I find the sources (metada, scripts and other files) of the actual official RPM files? I would like to start working with the applications I use every day to provide latest versions of them and then gradually start building and providing my own RPMs for applications and tools that aren't actually shipped in the official repositories - and I wasn't unable to find on any other 3rd-party repository. Thank you very much for any advice you can provide :) -Martín

1 1

%doc doesn't seem to use _defaultdocdir definition
by dani 11 Apr '15

11 Apr '15

Hi List, I'm a newb at writing spec files, please bear with me. I'm rebuilding a package for RHEL 6, so if this is the wrong list, please let me know. I have redefined the prefix stack: %global _prefix /opt/%{name}/%{version} %global _exec_prefix %{_prefix} %global _bindir %{_exec_prefix}/bin %global _sbindir %{_exec_prefix}/sbin %global _libexecdir %{_exec_prefix}/libexec %global _sysconfdir /etc %global _sharedstatedir /var/lib %global _localstatedir /var %global _libdir %{_exec_prefix}/%{_lib} %global _includedir %{_prefix}/include %global _datarootdir %{_prefix}/share %global _datadir %{_datarootdir} %global _infodir %{_datarootdir}/info %global _localedir %{_datarootdir}/locale %global _mandir %{_datarootdir}/man %global _docdir %{_datarootdir}/doc %global _htmldir %{_docdir} %global _dvidir %{_docdir} %global _pdfdir %{_docdir} %global _psdir %{_docdir} %global _defaultdocdir %{_docdir} In configure: ../configure \ --prefix=%{_prefix} \ --exec-prefix=%{_exec_prefix} \ --bindir=%{_bindir} \ --sbindir=%{_sbindir} \ --sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir} \ --datadir=%{_datadir} \ --includedir=%{_includedir} \ --libdir=%{_libdir} \ --libexecdir=%{_libexecdir} \ --localstatedir=%{_localstatedir} \ --sharedstatedir=%{_sharedstatedir} \ --mandir=%{_mandir} \ --infodir=%{_infodir} \ --docdir=%{_docdir} \ ... In make install: make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} \ prefix=%{_prefix} \ mandir=%{_mandir} \ infodir=%{_infodir} \ docdir=%{_docdir} \ install The package completes without errors, resulting in RPMs, but In the output I see multiple instances of: + DOCDIR=~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/<rpm top buildroot dir>/usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} + export DOCDIR and when installing the RPMs they install docs to /usr/share/doc. when building and installing manually all is well (share/doc under /opt/...) What am I doing wrong?

4 7

%license and directory ownership
by Jonathan Underwood 09 Apr '15

09 Apr '15

Hi, Now that the guidelines recommend use of the %license tag, fedora-review complains about the unowned directory /usr/share/licenses. I presume this is something that needs fixing in fedora-review, otherwise the fix would be for every package to Requre the filesystem package ? Before filing a bug against fedora-review I wanted to check that this analysis is correct. Thanks, Jonathan

3 2

Re: [Fedora-packaging] why gem install always use the --force option? [SOLVED]
by Athenas Jimenez 05 Apr '15

05 Apr '15

Thank you so much!!! That was exactly the answer I was looking for. On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote: > Dne 1.4.2015 v 19:14 Athenas Jimenez napsal(a): > > Hello, > > This is basically my question, why ruby gems packages always use --force > option during installation? > > (from http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/tree/macros.rubygems) > > gem install \\\ > -V \\\ > --local \\\ > --install-dir %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \\\ > --bindir .%{_bindir} \\\ > *--force \\\* > --document=ri,rdoc \\\ > %{-n*}%{!?-n:%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem} \ > %{nil} > > Thanks for your help > > Athenas > > > > > > From the help: > > $ gem help install > > > -f, --[no-]force Force gem to install, bypassing > dependency > checks > > > > I.e. "gem install" would try to install also gem's dependencies (which are > not available, since we are offline during build), while the "--force" > option installs just the gem itself. The dependecies have to be satisfied > by BuildRequires instead. > > > Vít > > > -- > packaging mailing list > packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging >

1 0

Merging 2 packages
by Scott Talbert 04 Apr '15

04 Apr '15

Hi, I have two packages that I maintain that both use the same upstream tarball. I'm not sure about the history behind why this was setup this way, but I assume it was so that one could be updated without having to update the other. This happens so rarely that I don't think it is really worth the effort of maintaining two separate packages (and dealing with buildroot overrides, submitting synchronized updates, etc.) Thus, I am thinking about merging them. Is this really just as simple as having spec A build spec B's packages and then retire source package B? Thanks, Scott

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging April 2015