packaging October 2018

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

17 participants
15 discussions

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-10-04 16:00 - 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:02 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-10-04/fpc.2018- 10-04-16.00.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:02) * I have fixed markup on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ (ignatenkobrain, 16:04:13) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:04:38) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor aproject.org/message/PCK2NLJADBXFXBR43BVQIYXGSLTKLMIR/ (geppetto, 16:04:42) * #775 Allow to have %{?suse_version} condition in spec file (geppetto, 16:07:06) * ACTION: FPC prefers you don't do it, but there's nothing stopping you. (+1:6, 0:1, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:16:32) * #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros (geppetto, 16:17:26) * ACTION: decathorpe will clean up the page (geppetto, 16:28:03) * #784 forbid globs for shared libraries as it conceals sonames (geppetto, 16:28:33) * PR was merged this week (geppetto, 16:29:35) * LINK: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing _shared_library_files (ignatenkobrain, 16:31:07) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/c/2051d0c7dcd7f062e2c8571f19a 8cf7eea8b0ce6?branch=master (decathorpe, 16:31:19) * Open Floor (geppetto, 16:33:31) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packag er_group (mhroncok, 16:37:46) * LINK: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/Af6Zb~cirGwiyAc6JaNIxA (ignatenkobrain, 16:49:29) * LINK: https://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/greasemonkey/Widen_pagure.user.js (tibbs, 16:56:56) * LINK: https://github.com/greasemonkey/greasemonkey (tibbs, 17:00:09) Meeting ended at 17:00:20 UTC. Action Items ------------ * FPC prefers you don't do it, but there's nothing stopping you. (+1:6, 0:1, -1:0) * decathorpe will clean up the page Action Items, by person ----------------------- * decathorpe * decathorpe will clean up the page * **UNASSIGNED** * FPC prefers you don't do it, but there's nothing stopping you. (+1:6, 0:1, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * tibbs (70) * geppetto (61) * decathorpe (24) * ignatenkobrain (22) * mhroncok (19) * limburgher (17) * zodbot (16) * redi (16) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
by Igor Gnatenko 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

Hello everyone, We have moved packaging guidelines onto docs.fedoraproject.org[0]. If you find any error or would like to change something, don't hesitate to open ticket or submit pull request for packaging committee repo[1]. Thanks for attention! [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ [1] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee -- -Igor Gnatenko

5 4

Re: [Fedora-join] My experience as a wannabe contributor
by Brian (bex) Exelbierd 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

+packaging list Thank you for taking the time to describe your challenges. I am adding the packaging list as they are in a position to help with some of these issues and to consider where more docs may be useful. I am not sure how to help on the package reviews side. I personally only have one package in Fedora and my role in the project made it easy to find a reviewer. But, you shouldn't have to be the FCAIC to make getting a reviewer easy. I know that we are working on more automation in these areas to make review less human-labor intensive. However, that doesn't help you today. I hope we will hear some news from FPC about this. regards, bex On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:40 PM Alain Vigne <alain.vigne.14(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, I am Alain, FAS: avigne > > As discussed today in #fedora-devel, here is some feedback about my experience trying to join Fedora as a contributor -> packager. > > TLDR: Adding a new package and become a Fedora packager is NOT easy. > > I am not a computer scientist, but as an Integrated Circuit designer, I am using eCAD proprietary tools heavily. > With my years of experience, I came up to know how to use Fedora, and I like this distro because it is reliable, and fairly up to date with software technologies. > > When Fedora FEL spin was alive, I picked up some tools, and slowly learn how to use them. gEDA, PCB, NGspice, GerbV, etc... > At some point, 2 years ago, I thought Open Source world gave me a lot, it was time to give back... So I contacted the pcb-rnd project [1], and started to contribute code around GTK, and GUI aspects of the application. > > Naturally, as I am developing with a Fedora system, I thought it could be nice to have pcb-rnd for Fedora... I had no clue on how to proceed, and first, I tried to find someone who can do that for me... > Found no one. (I should have known :). > > Time passes by, and one day a pcb-rnd Mageia contributor showed me the .spec file he wrote for Mageia. I was curious about what was behind all those commands and how this "recipe" (the .spec file) can lead to a package. > So I dug into the documentation (mainly Fedora wiki) learning how to first build an RPM, then after a successful local "mock", my curiosity was satisfied. I thought I understood the purpose of those tools (rpmbuild, rpmlint, mock). > > That is when I started to think about contributing this package to Fedora. "It should be easy, I have the recipe, I just need to find where to check-in the .spec file..." Easy thought, no ? > Unfortunately, no, this is not easy. > > First, there are tons of pages describing the process, and what to do. In theory the process is well described. > In practice, I got stuck in the "need a sponsor" phase where I think there is kinda chicken-and-egg problem for a new contributor. > > I might detail that, later, if someone is interested in this list. > > My feeling today, 6 months after I jumped in the unknown is not very much positive: > I had to register, open accounts, leave traces on many systems before being able to .... get nothing at the moment > > Bugzilla > FAS > COPR > mailing list > Freenode registration > > etc... > I feel like someone who has a complicated map under the eyes, walk, try and error to make sense of the map, up to a point where the map says: next step is "find a sponsor" and I have no idea how this is being done. > And time passes by... Slowly. I am silently ignored. > > Somebody says today : "Do informal reviews [a suggestion on the wiki, but what can I suggest ? I have no experience ->chicken and egg problem], make some mails, fill some bugs and you will get noticed". > I think this is the problem: nobody noticed, it seems nobody cares having a new volunteer. > > So, I am concluding: Fedora = too big ship, mainly automated, with a lot of processes (procedures, way of working) and a community not open to new contributors [I recall, my experience is only about contributing a new package], because this is too complicated (which I agree and understand). > > That said, I am a patient man, and I have done all this travel not to being stop by a wall. I spent my life trying to get around, over, across... so many walls, so, I won't surrender here ! > Thanks for reading till that point, and let us open the debate. > > Kind regards > Alain > PS: I am French, not EN native speaker, pardon my language if it does not make sense to you. > > [1] http://repo.hu/projects/pcb-rnd/ > > > -- > Alain V. > _______________________________________________ > fedora-join mailing list -- fedora-join(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to fedora-join-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/fedora-join@lists.fedoraproje… -- Brian (bex) Exelbierd | bexelbie(a)redhat.com | bex(a)pobox.com Fedora Community Action & Impact Coordinator @bexelbie | http://www.winglemeyer.org

2 1

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-10-04 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 03 Oct '18

03 Oct '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-10-04 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-10-04 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-10-04 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-10-04 16:00 UTC UTC 2018-10-04 17:00 BST Europe/London 2018-10-04 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2018-10-04 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2018-10-04 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-10-05 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-10-05 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-10-05 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-10-05 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followups = #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #775 Allow to have %{?suse_version} condition in spec file .fpc 775 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/775 #topic #784 forbid globs for shared libraries as it conceals sonames .fpc 784 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/784 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can: * Reply to this e-mail * File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee * E-mail me directly * 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

Spec file fixes for prefix=/app Flatpak builds
by Owen Taylor 02 Oct '18

02 Oct '18

As some of you are aware, I've been working on a project to make it possible to build Flatpaks out of Fedora RPMs within the Fedora infrastructure. One of the key elements of this is rebuilding RPMs with prefix=/app. The way that Flatpak works is that at runtime, two filesystems are mounted: /usr- the "runtime" - standard Fedora libraries shared by multiple Flatpaks /app - the application and libraries distributed inside the app container To rebuild a package with prefix=/app, it is rebuilt in a module that has the 'flatpak-rpm-macros' package installed in the buildroot (this is automatically done when your package depends on the flatpak-runtime module.) The flatpak-rpm-macros package overrides %{_prefix}, %{_datadir}, etc, and points them to /app. About 90% of packages just work without any changes at all, but other packages need some (mostly minor) changes. Generally, I'd consider most changes that are needed things that make the packages more compliant with the packaging guidelines - we expect packages to honor %{_prefix}. But there is one assumption some of the changes make that Petr Pisar pointed out to me that everybody might not agree with: %{_prefix} and related macros specify the install location of this package, they should not be used for paths to tools used as BuildRequires. So I wanted to run that idea past the packaging list for comment. In many cases, that assumption can be fixed inside installed RPM macros (meson, ninja, and qt5 macros have already been fixed.) But in a few cases a spec file does make that assumption. I've made a wiki pages that has all the changes I've needed so far: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flatpak:Fixes Everything marked with a checkmark is already in Fedora - either because I committed a fix directly (mostly workstation related packages), or more commonly, because I've submitted a pull-request that the maintainer accepted. Regards, Owen

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging October 2018