packaging February 2021

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

14 participants
15 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

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2019-08-15 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 18 Jul '21

18 Jul '21

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2019-08-15 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2019-08-15 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2019-08-15 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2019-08-15 16:00 UTC UTC 2019-08-15 17:00 BST Europe/London 2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2019-08-15 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2019-08-16 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2019-08-16 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2019-08-16 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2019-08-16 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 #902 Cleanup & enhance spec files .fpc 902 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/902 #topic #904 Caret versioning .fpc 904 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/904 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check .fpc 909 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909 #topic #914 Automatic R runtime dependencies .fpc 914 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/914 = 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.

3 2

Odd problem with obsoletes in EPEL8
by Martin Jackson 18 Jul '21

18 Jul '21

Hello, I'm having a problem I don't understand how to fix, and I would appreciate some guidance. I'm maintaining nagios-plugins, which bundles a number of different "check" plugins and has some metapackages that include different subsets of those check plugins. In the EL 8.2 release cycle, one of the dependencies of one of those plugins was moved from EPEL into EL proper, which broke new installs of that plugin and the -all metapackage. A user filed a bug, so as a temporary workaround, I stopped building the plugin package with that dependency (nagios-plugins-ssl_validity, and had that version (nagios-plugins-2.3.3-3) obsolete the ssl_validity plugin, since leaving it around caused it to want to keep the base package in conflict with other packages that were upgrading. Now that CentOS 8.2 is released, and the dependency is available, I've issued an update (https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-70bcfe5382) that builds ssl_validity again, and also adds it back to the -all subpackage. I can upgrade it sucessfully (which installs the ssl_validity plugin again, as expected), but subsequent calls to dnf upgrade give this error: Obsoleting Packages nagios-plugins.x86_64 2.3.3-3.el8 epel nagios-plugins-ssl_validity.x86_64 2.3.3-4.el8 @epel-testing nagios-plugins 2.3.3-3 is not installed anymore, and there are no explicit Obsoletes: in the ssl_validity package. I'm not sure what needs to be done here, but whatever it is I'm willing to make the change. Also wondering if this is expected behavior. Thanks, Marty

2 1

Fedora Update Policy
by Brad Bell 07 Mar '21

07 Mar '21

I have a package that runs all it's automated tests during the `%check phase` of the build process. I am not sure what I should specify, for this case, during the `fedpkg updae` command ? It seems that my updates have gotten stuck, with the options I have tried. For example, see `20210000.3-3.fc33` on http://rpms.remirepo.net/rpmphp/zoom.php?rpm=cppad How can I move this version to `base` for fedora-33 ?

5 8

Adding a metainfo file to a package
by Matti Pulkkinen 27 Feb '21

27 Feb '21

Hello! I recently reported a bug [1] against RStudio because it wasn't showing up in Gnome Software. The problem seems to have been that the package did not ship a metainfo file. I tried making a metainfo file for this package and attached it to the bug report, and it has since been added to the package. However, RStudio still does not show up in Gnome Software. Does something else still need to be done, or is the file I created just bad? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928992 -- Terveisin / Regards, Matti Pulkkinen

4 3

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2021-02-25 17:00 - 17:40 UTC)
by James Antill 25 Feb '21

25 Feb '21

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 17:00:48 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2021-02-25/fpc.2021-02-2… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 17:00:48) * Schedule (geppetto, 17:05:25) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject… (geppetto, 17:05:28) * Open floor (geppetto, 17:06:15) * #1018 Review exception request: Xorg utility deaggregation (geppetto, 17:08:01) * ACTION: mhroncok will help design the brp script (geppetto, 17:28:47) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:32:19) Meeting ended at 17:40:20 UTC. Action Items ------------ * mhroncok will help design the brp script Action Items, by person ----------------------- * mhroncok * mhroncok will help design the brp script * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (42) * King_InuYasha (32) * mhroncok (24) * decathorpe (19) * zodbot (17) * tibbs (12) * limburgher (6) * carlwgeorge (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2021-02-25 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 24 Feb '21

24 Feb '21

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2021-02-25 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2021-02-25 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2021-02-25 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2021-02-25 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2021-02-25 17:00 UTC UTC 2021-02-25 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2021-02-25 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2021-02-25 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2021-02-26 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2021-02-26 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2021-02-26 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2021-02-26 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 #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 = 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 = 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

golang macros in epel
by Mattia Verga 24 Feb '21

24 Feb '21

Hello folks, I'm trying to fix reg package FTB and I've successfully managed to port the specfile to use golang macros in Rawhide [1]. However, since the package is needed in Fedora infrastructure to run registry server, I would like to make it build in EPEL also. As I can see from scratch builds, golang macros don't exist in epel7 ('%gometa' is not recognized there), while in epel8 they seems to exist, but I get a failure in %prep section [2]: + %goprep -ke /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Zw57Mq: line 46: fg: no job control Can anyone give me some advice how to handle that? Thanks. Mattia [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62621577 [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62621583

2 1

Python extras: underscore supported?
by Frank R Dana Jr. 23 Feb '21

23 Feb '21

I recently committed[1] an updated package spec for python-webscrapbook[2]. Its setup.py file contains the following lines: extras_require={ "adhoc_ssl": ["cryptography"], }, I therefore wanted to include 'adhoc_ssl' as a Python Extras subpackage, as documented[3] in the Packaging Guidelines. However, if I remove the '%if 0' wrapper around line 36 in my spec file: %{?python_extras_subpkg:%python_extras_subpkg -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name} -i %{python3_sitelib}/*.egg-info adhoc_ssl } a `fedpkg --release f33 local` build fails with the following errors: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Processing files: python3-webscrapbook+adhoc-0.33.3-1.fc33.noarch Error: The package name contains an extras name `adhoc` that was not found in the metadata. Check if the extras were removed from the project. If so, consider removing the subpackage and obsoleting it from another. error: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': *** PYTHON_EXTRAS_NOT_FOUND_ERROR___SEE_STDERR *** Error: The package name contains an extras name `adhoc` that was not found in the metadata. Check if the extras were removed from the project. If so, consider removing the subpackage and obsoleting it from another. error: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': *** PYTHON_EXTRAS_NOT_FOUND_ERROR___SEE_STDERR *** Provides: python-webscrapbook+adhoc = 0.33.3-1.fc33 python3-webscrapbook+adhoc = 0.33.3-1.fc33 python3.9-webscrapbook+adhoc = 0.33.3-1.fc33 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...As you can see, it's trying to package a nonexistent extra named 'python3-webscrapbook+adhoc', rather than the expected 'python3-webscrapbook_adhoc_ssl'. Running `pip3 install --user 'webscrapbook[adhoc_ssl]`, executes fine (and checks that the cryptography package was installed, as required by the adhoc_ssl extra), so 'adhoc_ssl' does appear to be a valid Python package extra name. I tried wrapping the extra name in double quotes, I tried backslash-escaping the underscore... nothing seems to work. * Am I doing something wrong? * Do the RPM macros for extras not support names with underscores? * Is there any way to convince them to take an extra name containing an underscore? [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-webscrapbook/c/26f5e10fe03aa5b664… [2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-webscrapbook [3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_python_e…

2 6

Updating one-off contributions documentation
by Otto Urpelainen 21 Feb '21

21 Feb '21

Hi, I would like to update the instructions for [One-off contributions][1] to packages. First, they are outdated, there is no need for external Git hosting since the anonymous checkout from src.fp.o method can now be used. Second, anyone needing that info is probably new to Fedora packaging and would appreciate something else than two terse paragraphs added to the bottom of very detailed article that they cannot actually utilize due to missing permissions. Currently, the documnetation is in the wiki. Am I correct that this kind of content should go to docs.fp.o? If so, I can make a pull request to move it. Either the whole _Joint he package collection maintainers_ page, or just the one-off contributions section. Does anybody here know what would be the correct course of action? Docs would be a better location for the one-off contributions section in particular. If anyone needs that information, they likely do not have the required groups in the Fedora Accounts to update the wiki. In case they discover anything is wrong or missing. With docs, that is not a problem, since the pull request method works there. Regards, Otto [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#One-…

2 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging February 2021