packaging May 2018

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
17 discussions

Fixing wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines
by Jun Aruga 23 Oct '18

23 Oct '18

Dear Packagers who are using Boostrapping logic for the cyclical dependency Need your help to fix wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines. This mail is long. Sorry for that in advance. You may be building the cyclical dependency packages by using a variable such as _with_bootstrap, need_bootstrap, bootstrap, enable_test, and etc.. For example, you may build with below ways for that, if you will use mock command. ``` $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --with=bootstrap *.src.rpm => _with_bootstrap can be used as --with=bootstrap $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define '_with_bootstrap 1' *.src.rpm $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define 'need_bootstrap 1' *.src.rpm $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define 'enable_test 1' *.src.rpm ... ``` Here is a document page to unify the Bootstrap logic. You may know it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bootstrapping However I found that below part in the page is wrong. ``` %{!?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1} ``` Because .. If _with_bootstrap is not set from outside, bootstrap is 1 => bootstrap is True/Enabled if _with_bootstrap is set as 1 from outside, bootstrap's value is not set. => the value is empty if it is not declared in advance. It's a kind of 0. bootstrap is False/Disabled. This situation is opposite meaning of "_with_bootstrap". Below way not using negative operator `!?` is correct. ``` %{?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1} ``` The reason why I wrote this here is I found that had already been reported 2 years ago for packaging committee, however it was closed without fixing. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/509 I am not sure that why it is not admitted. You may feel that it does not matter because you may edit the Bootstrapping logic in the RPM spec file manually. But in my case, I am one of the people who use the Bootsrapping logic actively. There are 89 RPM packages that constitutes Ruby on Rails 5.0. To build Ruby on Rails 5.0 completely from scratch, I have to build the packages total 103 times considering bootstrap. I am trying to build those packages automatically by a tool [1] with a configuration file [2] for Ruby on Rails. It is important to fix it due to that. Fortunately today another guy Vit created new ticket for that. So, if YOU like this proposal, please comment in below page of the ticket or reply here. It is helpful for us to move this huge rock. I really want to fix it. "I like it." comment please. => https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/684 Thank you for your help. [1] https://github.com/sclorg/rpm-list-builder [2] https://github.com/sclorg/rhscl-rebuild-recipes/blob/master/ror.yml Kind regards, Jun Aruga

10 27

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-05-31 16:00 - 17:05 UTC)
by James Antill 31 May '18

31 May '18

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:51 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-05-31/fpc.2018- 05-31-16.00.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:51) * LINK: https://emojipedia.org/thumbs-up-sign/ (decathorpe, 16:05:25) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:05:56) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor aproject.org/message/M7VIS55Q4YDQFEJTOLQB34EWDL7OAEVG/ (geppetto, 16:06:06) * #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review (geppetto, 16:06:21) * ACTION: Deprecation guideline with no %name but optional date. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:20:28) * #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config (geppetto, 16:20:44) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RPMMacros (geppetto, 16:21:13) * ACTION: mbooth should be free to look at draft in next week or two. (geppetto, 16:28:22) * #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects (geppetto, 16:29:43) * LINK: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/2 4 (decathorpe, 16:32:05) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots (tibbs, 16:40:05) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:03:29) * limburgher also voted +1 on ticket #743 (geppetto, 17:04:37) Meeting ended at 17:05:18 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Deprecation guideline with no %name but optional date. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * mbooth should be free to look at draft in next week or two. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * mbooth * mbooth should be free to look at draft in next week or two. * **UNASSIGNED** * Deprecation guideline with no %name but optional date. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (69) * tibbs (41) * decathorpe (25) * zodbot (14) * mbooth (5) * limburgher (5) * redi (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-05-31 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 31 May '18

31 May '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-05-31 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-05-31 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-05-31 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-05-31 16:00 UTC UTC 2018-05-31 17:00 BST Europe/London 2018-05-31 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2018-05-31 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2018-05-31 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-06-01 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-06-01 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-06-01 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-06-01 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 #691 noarch *sub*packages with arch-specific dependencies .fpc 691 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/691 #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #714 let's kill file deps! .fpc 714 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review .fpc 723 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/723 #topic #726 Review for SELinux Independent Policy packaging Draft .fpc 726 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/726 #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config .fpc 743 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743 = 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, 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

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-05-24 16:00 - 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 24 May '18

24 May '18

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:20 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-05-24/fpc.2018-05-2… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:20) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:05:01) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject… (geppetto, 16:05:03) * #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects (geppetto, 16:05:54) * #657 Keeping packager tooling in sync with our guidelines (geppetto, 16:12:48) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523826 is perhaps a useful example. (tibbs, 16:22:16) * Committe doesn't mind doing work ourself, if we have time … which we often don't. (geppetto, 16:26:58) * ACTION: tibbs In his copious free time will survey how out of sync. the tooling is. (geppetto, 16:28:06) * #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review (geppetto, 16:28:09) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Churchyard/Packaging:Deprecating_Packag… (geppetto, 16:28:37) * Got +4 for no %name (geppetto, 16:57:24) * Open Floor (geppetto, 16:57:40) Meeting ended at 17:01:39 UTC. Action Items ------------ * tibbs In his copious free time will survey how out of sync. the tooling is. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * tibbs * tibbs In his copious free time will survey how out of sync. the tooling is. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * tibbs (62) * geppetto (59) * redi (18) * ignatenkobrain (15) * zodbot (14) * mbooth (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-05-24 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 23 May '18

23 May '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-05-24 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-05-24 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-05-24 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-05-24 16:00 UTC UTC 2018-05-24 17:00 BST Europe/London 2018-05-24 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2018-05-24 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2018-05-24 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-05-25 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-05-25 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-05-25 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-05-25 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 #657 Keeping packager tooling in sync with our guidelines .fpc 657 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/657 #topic #691 noarch *sub*packages with arch-specific dependencies .fpc 691 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/691 #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #714 let's kill file deps! .fpc 714 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review .fpc 723 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/723 #topic #726 Review for SELinux Independent Policy packaging Draft .fpc 726 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/726 #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config .fpc 743 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743 = 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, 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

Question about getent/glibc-common in Requires
by Jan Pokorný 23 May '18

23 May '18

Hello, looks like https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups#Dynamic_allocation sets a precedent that "getent" utility can be taken for granted. Or is "Requires(pre): glibc-common" omitted just by accident? What about a package that uses getent in an auxiliary script, is it any different? Should there rather be path-based dependency as used with systemd, "Requires: /usr/bin/getent"? Thanks for guidance. -- Jan (Poki)

2 3

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-05-17 16:00 - 17:05 UTC)
by James Antill 23 May '18

23 May '18

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:22 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-05-17/fpc.2018- 05-17-16.00.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:23) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:06:19) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor aproject.org/message/BR5BMNRH7PR2MV7PFCLJU7OO6FKKD2OT/ (geppetto, 16:06:20) * #767 Clarity for packaging addons for non-fedora applications (geppetto, 16:06:30) * ACTION: Add tibbs proposed exception for chrome plugins that are compat. with chromium. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:22:26) * #754 Should py3-foo obsolete py2-foo (when py2-foo is removed)? (geppetto, 16:24:03) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578514 (mhroncok, 16:29:05) * mhroncok to help tibbs co-maintain fedora-obsolete-packages (geppetto, 16:57:48) * We acknowledge that there are likely to be a lot of py2 packages added to fedora-obsolete-packages in the near future (geppetto, 16:58:48) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:01:36) Meeting ended at 17:06:14 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Add tibbs proposed exception for chrome plugins that are compat. with chromium. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * tibbs * Add tibbs proposed exception for chrome plugins that are compat. with chromium. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (84) * tibbs (71) * mhroncok (65) * limburgher (32) * decathorpe (23) * zodbot (14) * redi (9) * sgallagh (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

2 1

example for %post -p
by Miroslav Suchý 22 May '18

22 May '18

For documentation purpose I am trying to come with some example for -p flag. Like: %post -p ldconfig But I do not want to use ldconfig as this one, we are now removing. So I do not use it as example as people will likely use it. However, I cannot come with some other example, which has sense. Do you have some meaningful example of "-p" flag? Miroslav

3 3

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-05-17 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 17 May '18

17 May '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-05-17 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-05-17 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-05-17 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-05-17 16:00 UTC UTC 2018-05-17 17:00 BST Europe/London 2018-05-17 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2018-05-17 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2018-05-17 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-05-18 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-05-18 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-05-18 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-05-18 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 #657 Keeping packager tooling in sync with our guidelines .fpc 657 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/657 #topic #691 noarch *sub*packages with arch-specific dependencies .fpc 691 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/691 #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #714 let's kill file deps! .fpc 714 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review .fpc 723 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/723 #topic #726 Review for SELinux Independent Policy packaging Draft .fpc 726 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/726 #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config .fpc 743 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743 #topic #754 Should py3-foo obsolete py2-foo (when py2-foo is removed)? .fpc 754 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/754 = New business = #topic #767 Clarity for packaging addons for non-fedora applications .fpc 767 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/767 = 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, 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

Conventions for compiling SRPMs for 32bit targets
by Boris Zikeyev 12 May '18

12 May '18

Hi all, I'm hoping this is the correct mailing list for my question. I wanted to know if there is a common\conventional way of compiling SRPMs (and generating the corresponding binary RPMs) on a x86_64 env for a i686 target. In particular, I'm interested in compiling glibc for i686. This has to be possible, since an i686 version of the package is indeed available from the repository. However, simply attempting to compile the SRPM by running: rpmbuild -ba <my path>/rpmbuild/SPECS/glibc.spec --target=i686 (after obtaining all of the dependencies) seems to fail due to incorrect env vars and\or configure flags.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging May 2018