packaging December 2021

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
6 discussions

RPM-level auto release and changelog bumping - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal
by Ben Cotton 13 Aug '22

13 Aug '22

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpm_level_auto_release_and_changelog… == Summary == redhat-rpm-config will be updated so users of the auto framework get automated release and changelog bumping. == Owner == * Name: [[User:nim| Nicolas Mailhot]] * Email: <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> == Detailed Description == This is a system-wide change because all packages build with redhat-rpm-config, but it only concerns packages that opted to use this part of redhat-rpm-config (auto framework). The change will make those packages auto-bump and auto-changelog at the rpm level, in an infrastructure-independent way. == Benefit to Fedora == Autobumping removes a huge packager shore and makes timestamping in changelogs more reliable. == Scope == * Proposal owners: The feature is coded and works at the rpm level. Unfortunately, mock filters away the srpms containing the bump state, so it does not work in upper layers. * Other developers: The feature requires buy-in by mock developers (and probably koji developers) to lift the restrictions that block it above the rpm level. Also, it requires a mechanism to pass the user name and email that will be used in bumped changelogs (defining two variables in ~/.rpmmacros is sufficient at rpm level) * Mock issue: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/599 * Release engineering: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9567 * Policies and guidelines: maybe eventually if things work out on the technical level * FPC issue: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/998 * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) == Upgrade/compatibility impact == This is a pure build tooling update, it changes how things are built not what is built. == How To Test == A redhat-rpm-config packages with the changes and some example packages are available in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/refactoring-forge-patches-auto-… Since the mock/copr layer is currently blocking the feature, you need to install the redhat-rpm-config and forge macro packages available in this repo locally. Afterwards you can take any of the example packages in the repo and rebuild them with rpmbuild -ba to your heart content, and see the releases bump and the changelogs being updated accordingly. To get beautiful changelogs, you also need to add <pre> %buildsys_name Your name %buildsys_email Your email </pre> in ~/.rpmmacros == User Experience == N/A Packager experience change only == Dependencies == The change is a spin-off of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Patches_in_Forge_macros_-_Auto_macro… Therefore, it depends on the success of that other change and will probably need rebasing if the code in this other change evolves during the redhat-rpm-config merge. It also depends on mock / copr/ koji buy-in and changes, that may add their own requirements. == Contingency Plan == There is no contingency plan because the change will happen or not at all. == Documentation == There is as much documentation as the average redhat-rpm-config change (ie comments in the macro files themselves) == Release Notes == N/A Packager productivity change only -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

12 23

Thoughts on pyproject-rpm-macros and license files?
by Ben Beasley 03 Jan '22

03 Jan '22

I’m aware that pyproject-rpm-macros can handle license files in many cases[1]: > %pyproject_save_files can automatically mark license files with %license macro and language (*.mo) files with %lang macro and appropriate language code. Only license files declared via PEP 639 License-Field field are detected. PEP 639 is still a draft and can be changed in the future. (I also know that there are some packages where no license file is marked, or where additional license files are needed, and it’s best to verify with “rpm -qL -p …” before relying on this feature. That’s not at issue here.) In a package review, it was suggested that, even when pyproject_files includes a license file installed in the dist-info directory and marked with %license, an explicit installation of the license file with a relative path, such as > %license LICENSE.txt might still be needed—under the theory that the license file is supposed to be installed in /usr/share/licenses. The Licensing Guidelines simply say that %license must be used, and don’t mention /usr/share/licenses[2]. I’m wondering if this question has come up before and if anyone has insight into whether or not pyproject-rpm-macros’s license file support is intended to replace manual license file handling. – Ben Beasley [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelin…

6 9

Revisiting header-only packages and noarch
by Ben Beasley 24 Dec '21

24 Dec '21

Currently, the packaging guidelines say the following[1] regarding header-only libraries: Do not use noarch It may be tempting to make the header library package noarch, since the header files themselves are simply text. However, a library should have tests which should be run on all architectures. Also, the install process may modify the installed headers depending on the build architecture. For these reasons, header-only packages must not be marked noarch. I’d like to collect feedback on the idea of revising this guidance to clarify that the *base* package, which in a header-only library package typically has no %files section and does not produce a binary RPM, must be arched, but that any subpackages, specifically including the -devel package, may be noarch. This would address both of the justifications for the general prohibition in the guidelines: - The package will still be built, and any tests executed, on all architectures so long as the base package is not noarch - Differences in the installed headers depending on the build architecture would be detected by koji[2], failing the build (and thereby indicating the need to drop “noarch”) However, it would confer the following benefits: - The vast majority of header-only packages could produce noarch binary rpms. This would: * save storage and bandwidth * be less surprising and confusing to packagers and users, who normally expect arch-independent content to appear in noarch packages I have created a PR[3] on the “atomic-queue” package as an example. In the associated scratch build, you can see that builds occur on all architectures, but only a single noarch RPM is produced. If feedback here is positive, I’ll open a Packaging Draft[4] with specific proposed text. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_do_not_use_noar… [2] https://docs.pagure.org/koji/misc/#how-noarch-sub-packages-are-built [3] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/atomic-queue/pull-request/1 [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Step_One:_Draft_Guidelin…

5 7

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2021-12-16 17:00 - 17:30 UTC)
by James Antill 16 Dec '21

16 Dec '21

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 17:01:04 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2021-12-16/fpc.2021-12-1… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 17:01:04) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:09:59) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1141 (tibbs, 17:21:23) Meeting ended at 17:30:02 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (20) * tibbs (16) * zodbot_ (8) * zodbot (6) * decathorpe (1) * tstellar (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.4 .. _`MeetBot`: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2021-12-09-17 17:00 - 17:55 UTC)
by James Antill 09 Dec '21

09 Dec '21

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 17:00:25 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2021-12-09/fpc.2021-12-0… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 17:00:25) * Schedule (geppetto, 17:06:41) * https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject… (geppetto, 17:06:44) * #1132 Mark comments as scriplets for Sources, for automation (geppetto, 17:07:30) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1132 (geppetto, 17:07:31) * LINK: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when-u… is what we have (tibbs, 17:14:28) * LINK: https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2021-12-02/ (geppetto, 17:35:34) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:36:06) Meeting ended at 17:55:03 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (48) * tibbs (32) * GwynCieslasheher (16) * zodbot (12) * carlwgeorge (10) * decathorpe (6) * tstellar (5) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.4 .. _`MeetBot`: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2021-12-09 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 08 Dec '21

08 Dec '21

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2021-12-09 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2021-12-09 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2021-12-09 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2021-12-09 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2021-12-09 17:00 UTC UTC 2021-12-09 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2021-12-09 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2021-12-09 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2021-12-10 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2021-12-10 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2021-12-10 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2021-12-10 03:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followup Actions = #topic #pr-814 * mhroncok talk to authors again, having a working example might help a lot = Followup Issues = #topic #886 Enable BRP for detecting RPATH .fpc 886 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 #topic #1132 Mark comments as scriplets for Sources, for automation .fpc 1132 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1132 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1045 WIP: Add discussion of macro names beginning with underscores. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1045 #topic #pr-1046 Improve separate test suite sourcing instructions https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1046 #topic #pr-1071 Overhaul the RPATH section of the guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1071 #topic #pr-1097 Use caret in Obsoletes to simplify https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1097 = 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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging December 2021