packaging July 2016

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

14 participants
12 discussions

--define 'check exit 0' breaks generation of debugfiles.list
by Basin Ilya 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Hi It's commonly advised that if .spec file doesn't support `--without check`, then to skip the check phase run rpmbuild with `--define 'check exit 0'`. But if I do so, some packages fail with: debugfiles.list: No such file or directory That's because `find-debuginfo.sh` not run after %install phase. Is it possible to skip the check without breaking generation of debugfiles.list and without editing the .spec file?

2 1

where is %{_docdir} defined ? and should use %{_defaultdocdir} or %{_docdir} and maybe we need update https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Installing_documentation:_2_paths
by Sérgio Basto 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Hello, %{_docdir} is a very strange macro , why rpm -E doesn't know what is %{_docdir} but %{_defaultdocdir} knows ? rpm -E "%{_docdir}" %{_docdir} rpm -E "%{_defaultdocdir}" /usr/share/doc So should I use %{_defaultdocdir} instead %{_docdir} ? and how %{_docdir} is set ? Another matter is this wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Installing_documentation:_2… is not in line with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs , should I update wiki page and change %{name}-%{version} with just %{name} ? Also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" should be cleaned ? Best regards, -- Sérgio M. B.

2 1

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2016-07-28 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 27 Jul '16

27 Jul '16

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2016-07-28 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2016-07-28 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2016-07-28 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2016-07-28 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2016-07-28 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2016-07-28 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2016-07-28 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2016-07-28 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2016-07-29 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2016-07-29 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2016-07-29 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2016-07-29 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane AEST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = Followups = #topic #558 Application/Library distinction and package splitting .fpc 558 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/558 #topic #566 RPM file triggers .fpc 566 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/566 #topic #610 Packaging guidelines: Check upstream tarball signatures .fpc 610 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/610 = New business = #topic #641 Proposal to improve wiki page of cmake packaging .fp c 641 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/641 #topic #642 Clarify in the packaging guidelines that the "nobody" user is not OK to use for system daemons .fpc 642 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/642 #topic #643 Exceptions for bootstrapping Rust and Cargo .fpc 643 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/643 #topic #644 Allow %systemd_ordering to be used .fpc 644 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/644 = 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

Packaging FPGA bitstreams
by Richard W.M. Jones 27 Jul '16

27 Jul '16

RISC-V is an open source instruction set architecture (ISA). I was broadly looking at what it would take to support RISC-V in Fedora, and as well as the usual things like kernel, GCC, binutils, maybe cross-compilers, and all the stuff that's the same for any new architecture, there is one problem which is specific to RISC-V. Because no hardware implementation of RISC-V exists that you can buy[1], currently you have to use an FPGA development kit and use one of the FPGA implementations -- I'm using lowRISC[2]. There are affordable FPGA kits for around US$150-$320 based on the Xilinx Artix-7 FPGA which are supported by lowRISC. The source for the RISC-V CPU core (called "Rocket") is written in Verilog and is free software (3-clause no advertising BSD). In FPGA-land, a "bitstream" is kind of like a binary or a firmware blob. Unfortunately to compile the source code to a bitstream, things get very proprietary. For Xilinx, you have to install their proprietary compiler, Vivado. It's not just proprietary but it has node-locked licensing so it's user-hostile too. There is a second sub-problem, but one which is going to be overcome soon. At the moment there is only a free CPU core. However to talk to the outside world even on an FPGA, it needs peripherals like a UART (serial port), SD card reader and some other SPI peripherals. These are provided by Xilinx and are (of course) proprietary IP. However lowRISC plan to replace these with free software peripherals later this year[3]. Once you've compiled your bitstream, you then need to write it to the FPGA. Writing a bitstream to the FPGA turns the FPGA into a RISC-V processor and you can boot Linux on it from an SD card. You can use the proprietary Vivado tool to write the bitstream to the FPGA, but there are also open source tools to do this. I used xc3sprog[4] (GPLv2). This all really works - I've been documenting building everything from source on my blog[5]. In summary: - Compiling the Verilog source code to a bitstream requires highly proprietary tools and will never be possible in Fedora. - Writing the bitstream to the FPGA is possible with GPL tools. - There are currently some proprietary bits in the bitstream, but I hope those will be removed at some point. Obviously the last point makes this moot right now, but assuming that can be fixed, here is my question: Can we package these bitstream files in Fedora? It would allow a more immediate out-of-the-box experience where you just plug in the development kit and go. Rich. [1] Hardware impls do exist, but they are all research projects so far, or otherwise not for sale. [2] http://www.lowrisc.org/ [3] https://speakerdeck.com/asb/lowrisc-plans-for-risc-v-in-2016 [4] https://sourceforge.net/p/xc3sprog/ [5] https://rwmj.wordpress.com/?s=RISC-V+on+an+FPGA -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/

2 1

sse3 optimized and unoptimized library
by Matthew Chan 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

Hi, I'm currently packaging a libraries that are nearly identical, except one version is sse3 optimized, and the other is not. (license also changes to GPL from BSD). The performance difference is significant. What is the correct way to handle this? They both provide the same libraries and headers. Should I use an ExclusiveArch: x86_64 on the sse3 version, and an ExcludeArch: x86_64 on the unoptimized version? Or perhaps even use a conflicts? (Assuming there are x86_64 processors that don't support SSE3? SSE3 seems to have been introduced with Pentium 4 Prescott) Thanks in advance for your replies, Matt

3 5

EPEL7: "Error: No Package found for nodejs"?
by Shawn Iwinski 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

I've tried several times since this morning to build one of my packages for EPEL 7 but it always fails with "Error: No Package found for nodejs" -- see https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6307/14936307/mock_output.log for one example. This has happened several times in the past with more dists than epel7 as well. Any suggestions?

3 6

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2016-07-14 16:00 - 17:05 UTC)
by James Antill 14 Jul '16

14 Jul '16

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:13 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-07-14/fpc.2016- 07-14-16.00.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:14) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:06:21) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor aproject.org/message/ZBVHJMPOT55DZ2H6O4XD5B5EHYPR5IK5/ (geppetto, 16:06:24) * #610 Packaging guidelines: Check upstream tarball signatures (geppetto, 16:06:58) * #637 approval for a 'docker-latest' package on fedora (geppetto, 16:15:01) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#Multiple_packages_w ith_the_same_base_name (orionp, 16:38:33) * No objections to using other namging than versioned, everyone but me seems ok with using docker-latest as the package name too if you want. (geppetto, 16:47:38) * Open Floor (geppetto, 16:48:21) Meeting ended at 17:05:10 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (65) * tibbs (54) * Rathann (18) * orionp (17) * zodbot (11) * limburgher (9) * number80 (5) * misc (1) * tomspur (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2016-07-14 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 14 Jul '16

14 Jul '16

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2016-07-14 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2016-07-14 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2016-07-14 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2016-07-14 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2016-07-14 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2016-07-14 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2016-07-14 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2016-07-14 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2016-07-15 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2016-07-15 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2016-07-15 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2016-07-15 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane AEST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = Followups = #topic #558 Application/Library distinction and package splitting .fpc 558 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/558 #566 RPM file triggers #topic #NNN Title of ticket .fpc 566 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/566 #topic #610 Packaging guidelines: Check upstream tarball signatures .fpc 610 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/610 #topic #637 approval for a 'docker-latest' package on fedora .fpc 637 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/637 = 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

How best to handle tools which support multiple Python runtimes
by Avram Lubkin 13 Jul '16

13 Jul '16

I'm a co-maintainer for the python-sphinx package. There's a bug [1] I'd like to address, but I'd like some input on what I was thinking. There was some discussion about this on FPC ticket [2], but nothing workable really came out of that. I also attempted to get input [3] from the Sphinx community, but didn't receive a response. For background, python-sphinx is available for both Python2 and Python3. It is primarily a library, but provides four commands for convenience: sphinx-build, sphinx-quickstart, sphinx-apidoc, sphinx-autogen. Here's an example of how these commands are currently made available to the user: /usr/bin/sphinx-build -> sphinx-build-2 /usr/bin/sphinx-build-2 -> sphinx-build-2.7 /usr/bin/sphinx-build-2.7 (#!/usr/bin/python2) /usr/bin/sphinx-build-3 -> sphinx-build-3.4 /usr/bin/sphinx-build-3.4 (#!/usr/bin/python3) It should be noted, all of these commands are just used to call entry points and don't have any of their own logic. Here are their equivalents: sphinx-build python -m sphinx sphinx-quickstart python -m sphinx.quickstart sphinx-apidoc python -m sphinx.apidoc sphinx-autogen python -m sphinx.ext.autosummary.generate Sphinx itself isn't Python version specific and maintains compatibility regardless of what Python version you are using or if you switch back and forth. Potentially there are some Sphinx extensions that are Python version dependent, but I am not aware of any. Use cases for Sphinx are all over the place. For example, I rarely use the commands and call sphinx through setuptools 99% of the time. Other people use the commands exclusively, and still others use the makefile created by sphinx-quickstart as their primary way to call it. It's this last one is where we are seeing the biggest problem and is described in the bug. Essentially, sphinx-quickstart-3 is used to create a makefile which lists sphinx-build as the build command. But sphinx-build is currently linked to the python2 version, which may not be expected, and won't necessarily be installed. It was suggested the makefile should be changed so the Python version that was used for sphinx-quickstart should be used for sphinx-build. Unfortunately, that would make the file less portable. I have two possible fixes: The first would be to decouple the commands from the libraries. Since the package name sphinx is already taken by the search engine, something like python-sphinx-bin may be appropriate. Once separated, the command would default to python3 since the packaging guidelines say it Python 3 versions should be preferred when equivalent. The second option would be to retain the multiple versions, but to manage the links with alternatives so the unversioned commands will default to whatever version is installed and again, Python 3 would be preferred if both were installed. Does anyone have any preferences, thoughts or alternative approaches? Avram [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321413 [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/612 [3] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sphinx-dev/vdFeOEj4EKg

1 0

Weak Dependencies from Third Party repos
by Adam Miller 11 Jul '16

11 Jul '16

Hello all, I recently started reviewing a package called sway[0][1], which is an i3wm[2] compatible window manager for wayland. One of it's utilities requires ffmpeg and I responded to the Review Request saying that we can not include third-party packages as Requires: so the packager then moved it to Suggests: and I'm unsure if that's allowed as there's no currently mention of Guidelines around that scenario in the Weak Dependencies wiki page[3]. I've opened a Council Ticket on the topic but thought I'd also start a discussion here. https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/61 [0] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308561 [1] - http://swaywm.org/ [2] - http://i3wm.org/ [3] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging July 2016