packaging August 2015

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

23 participants
13 discussions

BR in ReviewGuidelines out-of-date
by Michael Schwendt 31 Aug '15

31 Aug '15

> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 > > Announcement text: > > The BuildRequires? section of the guidelines has been revised; > the exceptions list is gone. The release engineering folks are free > to define the buildroot and rpm is free to change its dependency list. Since then, the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines are out-of-date. The item MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. contains a link to an anchor that no longer exists. The section about BuildRequires is this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2015-08-27 16:05 - 18:10 UTC)
by James Antill 27 Aug '15

27 Aug '15

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:05:03 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-08-27/fpc.2015-08-27… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:05:03) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:08:53) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-August/010946.html (geppetto, 16:08:55) * #565 New python package guidelines create upgrade path problem from old guidelines (geppetto, 16:10:21) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/565 (geppetto, 16:10:21) * ACTION: Automatically add obsoletes for < provides version, in python_provides macro. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:45:34) * #560 Bundling exception for rubygem{molinillo,thor,net-http-persistent} (geppetto, 16:46:03) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/560 (geppetto, 16:46:04) * ACTION: Allow rubygems to bundle molinillo, because software engineering is hard (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) (geppetto, 17:28:55) * Everyone seems to be leaning on just dropping "Bundler", upstream doesn't seem to want anyone to ship it and presumably rumbygems can get the mess if devs. want it. The deps. on it from vagrant and rails seem bad though … can they be removed? (geppetto, 17:30:23) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:32:37) Meeting ended at 18:08:52 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Automatically add obsoletes for < provides version, in python_provides macro. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Allow rubygems to bundle molinillo, because software engineering is hard (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * Automatically add obsoletes for < provides version, in python_provides macro. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Allow rubygems to bundle molinillo, because software engineering is hard (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (121) * tibbs|w (107) * orionp (73) * tomspur (28) * mbooth (16) * Rathann (11) * zodbot (10) * mstuchli (5) * gholms (4) * tibbs (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Packaging sphinx docs
by Robert Kuska 27 Aug '15

27 Aug '15

While figuring out how to proceed with development of pyp2rpm I've realized that I have no idea how to properly package docs generated by sphinx for python module having both python2 and python3 subpackages, I've decided to go with the following pattern: If package foo has docs generated with sphinx: - add BuildRequires: python-sphinx - use sphinx (unversioned binary) to generate docs - package docs under python-foo-docs subpackage Apply same behavior for every module, even if module ships both Python2 and Python3 subpackage its docs will be generated only once and stored under python-foo-docs. (Assuming that docs are same for both python major versions.) What do you think? -- Robert Kuska {rkuska}

3 2

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2015-08-27 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 26 Aug '15

26 Aug '15

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2015-08-27 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2015-08-27 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2015-08-27 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2015-08-27 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2015-08-27 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2015-08-27 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2015-08-27 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2015-08-27 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2015-08-28 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2015-08-28 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2015-08-28 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2015-08-28 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = New business = #topic #560 Bundling exception for rubygem{molinillo,thor,net-http-persistent} .fpc 560 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/560 #topic #562 Bundling exception for MongoDB .fpc 562 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/562 #topic #564 Bundling exception for apacheds-jdbm .fpc 564 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/564 #topic #565 New python package guidelines create upgrade path problem from old guidelines .fpc 565 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/565 = 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

naming package as a library or tool
by Parag Nemade 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

Hi, Sometimes I get confused how to handle naming of a package where package itself provides a nodejs or python library and wrapper/tool to use that library. We have guidelines where it says if source is library from npmjs or pypi then we should prefix package with nodejs or python but how to name when source contains both? What gets precedence? name them with prefixes or just by tool name or library name? Regards, Parag.

5 7

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2015-08-20 16:00 - 17:35 UTC)
by James Antill 20 Aug '15

20 Aug '15

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:22 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-08-20/fpc.2015-08-20… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:22) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:03:09) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-August/010939.html (geppetto, 16:03:14) * #555 Copylib bundling request: kwsys in castxml (geppetto, 16:04:14) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/555 (geppetto, 16:04:23) * LINK: https://github.com/CastXML/CastXML/tree/master/src/kwsys (geppetto, 16:25:16) * LINK: http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/2015-August/026040.html (mathstuf, 16:37:28) * LINK: http://public.kitware.com/gitweb?p=KWSys.git (Rathann, 17:01:29) * ACTION: Allow 2 year tmp. exception for castxml after modularized provides are added, and rm of unused modules happens at prep or before ideally upstreeam git (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:08:16) * #558 Switch order of install macros (geppetto, 17:09:27) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/558 (geppetto, 17:09:28) * #559 Ban use of rich dependencies (geppetto, 17:21:15) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/559 (geppetto, 17:21:16) * ACTION: Ban use of rich dependencies (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:32:29) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:32:35) Meeting ended at 17:39:04 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Allow 2 year tmp. exception for castxml after modularized provides are added, and rm of unused modules happens at prep or before ideally upstreeam git (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * Ban use of rich dependencies (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * Allow 2 year tmp. exception for castxml after modularized provides are added, and rm of unused modules happens at prep or before ideally upstreeam git (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * Ban use of rich dependencies (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (119) * tibbs|w (60) * mathstuf (59) * Rathann (37) * orionp (18) * tomspur (17) * racor (13) * zodbot (12) * mbooth (5) * tibbs (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2015-08-20 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 19 Aug '15

19 Aug '15

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2015-08-20 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2015-08-20 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2015-08-20 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2015-08-20 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2015-08-20 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2015-08-20 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2015-08-20 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2015-08-20 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2015-08-21 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2015-08-21 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2015-08-21 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2015-08-21 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = Followups = #topic #508 New GID for openstack-neutron .fpc 508 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/508 = New business = #topic #558 Switch order of install macros .fpc 558 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/558 #topic #559 Ban use of rich dependencies .fpc 559 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/559 #topic #560 Bundling exception for rubygem{molinillo,thor,net-http-persistent} .fpc 560 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/560 = 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.

2 1

gnome-shell extension packaging and directory ownership questions
by Michael Schwendt 19 Aug '15

19 Aug '15

Do we want to treat the "gnome-shell-extension-common" package as an "artificial filesystem" package to be required by all gnome-shell-extension-* packages to get directory ownership right? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_… [...] Inspite of its package name not ending with "-filesystem" (would that be a MUST?), the package description suggests that it serves as a filesystem package: $ rpm -qi gnome-shell-extension-common|tail -2 optional functionality to GNOME Shell. Common files and directories needed by extensions are provided here. It's only a single directory, and the "gnome-shell" parent dir is pulled in via a dependency: $ rpmls gnome-shell-extension-common|grep ^d drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/gnome-shell-extension-common drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions $ rpm -qR gnome-shell-extension-common|grep -v ^rpm gnome-shell >= 3.17.4 [...] It has been pointed out during review that the package is not '''an "official" filesystem-package'''. And packagers happily take existing packages as example. A single gnome-shell-extension package by somebody from Red Hat owns the directory instead, giving the excuse to do it like that, too. All other extension packages add a dependency on that "artificial filesystem" package. It would be good, if the gnome shell extensions addon package guidelines commented on this. Unless we don't care about such directory ownership issues at all anymore. Then everybody is free to add "multiple ownership" in random ways. But so many complex guidelines -- for what? That there are filesystem packages such as "hicolor-icon-theme" is not pretty already. What other filesystem packages are not named -filesystem? Trying to explain that to [new] packagers can become quite a task. [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.2… Addon Packages (gnome shell extensions) Packages that extend gnome shell should begin with the prefix gnome-shell-extension-. In particular, this prefix should not be pluralized (ie: it should not be gnome-shell-extensions).

2 4

Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?
by Gerald B. Cox 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

There has been a lively discussion within KDE regarding the Konqueror browser; and subsequently it has been decided that a non-KDE, GTK browser will be the default for the spin. Why, because Firefox is the only choice for Fedora, Chromium is not allowed. Here is a good excerpt: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Dan Mossor <danofsatx(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The correct avenue here, in light of the news from the upstream products, > is to keep the status quo regardless of the lack of usability. When we > finally get a fully-featured Qt based browser, that is when we switch. We > DO NOT switch to a GTk based browser that has zero integration with the > Plasma desktop - single click selection of files and directories within > Firefox doesn't even work, let alone the theming and other issues. > Ironically, those two items, as well as integration with kWallet, work fine > with Google Chrome (which is not a choice in this discussion). Tom Calloway has been working on Chromium - and his copr is up-to-date for anyone who wants to try it. https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/spot/chromium/ It's been a slow slog working through the issues keeping it from the official repository, but progress has been made: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28287 Things have also changed over the years, and Chrome/Chromium's popularity has continued to grow and is now packaged in Ubuntu, Debian and Suse. Firefox has exceptions mainly because it is deemed "to popular" to keep out of the distribution. I think it is obvious to everyone that Chrome/Chromium is "at least" as popular than Firefox. I realize we have our guidelines and we're not Debian, Suse or Ubuntu... and that's a good thing. But, if we're making exceptions for Firefox because of it's popularity shouldn't we do the same for Chromium.

9 20

RPM macro to match build arch
by Julien Enselme 06 Aug '15

06 Aug '15

Hi, I am in the process of packaging python-wsaccel (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244517). This module contains C extensions and in order to launch the tests, I need to modify the python path so that the build module are found. The build directory to add to the path is like: build/lib.%{_os}-%{_target_cpu}-%{python3_version} This expression works fine with i686 and x64_84. However, on armv, %{_target_cpu} resolves to armv7hl whereas the folder is named lib.linux-armv7l-3.4. Previously, I tried the %{_host} macro but it extends to i386 instead of i686 for 32 bits build. Is there a macro that would correctly extends in all cases (x86_64, i686 and armv7l)? If not, I will use grep to get the proper folder name. Regards, -- Julien Enselme aka Jujens http://www.jujens.eu/

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging August 2015