packaging March 2021

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

17 participants
17 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

Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
by Otto Urpelainen 04 Jul '21

04 Jul '21

Hello packagers, I have problems interpreting Packaging Guidelines section File and Directory Ownership [1] for icons application place in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor. I ran into this during package review for dosbox-x [2], but I think the issue is more general than that, because many applications add their icons to the (default, fallback) hicolor theme. So the package places application's icon to %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/dosbox-x.svg. From the guidelines, it is clear that for all directories in the chain, one of the following has to be true: 1. Package owns the directory 2. A dependency package owns the directory 3. _filesystem_, _man_ or "other explicitly created -filesystem package" own the directory Item 3 takes care of %{_datadir}/icons part, because that is included in _filesystem_. The remainder hicolor/scalable/apps is unclear for me. Method 1 could be used. But there is also package _hicolor-icon-theme_. Is that package an "explicitly created -filesystem package", so method 3 could be used? That would feel natural, because hicolor is the fallback theme that must exist according to freedesktop.org specification. Related but separate question about the guidelines: Section Unowned Directories:Inaccessible Directories [3] discusses a problem that is only relevant to Fedora < 9 and RHEL < 5.3. It does not really contain any information that is relevant today. Should that section simply be removed? Otto [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_direct… [2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639 [3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectorie…

4 8

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2021-03-25 16:00 - 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:01:10 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2021-03-25/fpc.2021-03-2… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:01:10) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:06:30) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject… (geppetto, 16:06:34) * #1055 can't navigate to pkg instructions from fedoraproject.org (geppetto, 16:07:33) * We don't really know what we need to do here (geppetto, 16:17:18) * #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? (geppetto, 16:17:33) * #1055 can't navigate to pkg instructions from fedoraproject.org (geppetto, 16:21:04) * ACTION: tibbs to add link to Join document from packaging guidelines (geppetto, 16:27:28) * #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? (geppetto, 16:30:42) * ACTION: tibbs to ask if anyone knows what gettext is supposed to do (geppetto, 16:53:18) * Open Floor (geppetto, 16:55:55) Meeting ended at 17:00:41 UTC. Action Items ------------ * tibbs to add link to Join document from packaging guidelines * tibbs to ask if anyone knows what gettext is supposed to do Action Items, by person ----------------------- * tibbs * tibbs to add link to Join document from packaging guidelines * tibbs to ask if anyone knows what gettext is supposed to do * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (68) * tibbs (42) * Eighth_Doctor (18) * zodbot (13) * bcotton (6) * cstratak (5) * limburgher (4) * carlwgeorge (2) * austinpowered (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2021-03-25 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2021-03-11 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2021-03-25 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2021-03-25 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2021-03-25 16:00 GMT Europe/London 2021-03-25 16:00 UTC UTC 2021-03-25 17:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2021-03-25 17:00 CET Europe/Paris 2021-03-25 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2021-03-26 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2021-03-26 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2021-03-26 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2021-03-26 02:00 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 = New business = #topic #1055 can't navigate to pkg instructions from fedoraproject.org .fpc 1055 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1055 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 = 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 = 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

Policy for rpmlint 2.0
by Miroslav Suchý 24 Mar '21

24 Mar '21

Hi. rpmlint [1] is slowly reaching the 2.0 milestone. The 2.0 version is quite redesigned and there is lot of changes. I migrated the Fedora config to new toml format and I will welcome any comments proposals and, even better, pull-requests. The configs are here: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/tree/master/configs/Fedo… It can be run from the git chekcout as: python3 lint.py --config configs/Fedora/ and it reads all toml files in that directory. The most interesting is `fedora.toml`: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/blob/master/configs/Fedo… There are lots of lines which are commented out. They come from openSUSE configs [2] It would be nice if someone can review whether these warnings make sense in Fedora context and either enable it (by removing the hashtag) or remove the line entirely. I am adding rpmlint-owners to cc as it would be nice to prepare Copr repo with git snapshot version so other projects using rpmlint can accommodate in advance (I am looking at fedora-review). [1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint [2] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/blob/master/configs/open… -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager, Community Packaging Tools, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

1 0

Re-review
by Alessio 24 Mar '21

24 Mar '21

Hello. The redir package was orphaned some time ago. I often use this command and I would like to continue to see it in the Fedora repository. Original (upstream) redir software is at version 2.2.1 for many years, and it seems that upstream is no more maintaining/developing it. However there is a 3.x version maintained on github. The new upstream developer states that: "Redir was originally created by Sam [http://sammy.net/~sammy/hacks/]Creasey[http://sammy.net/~sammy/hacks/] and is now developed and maintained at GitHub[https://github.com/troglobit/redir] by Joachim Nilsson[http://troglobit.com]." Indeed the command, its options and how it operates are the same. However, since upstream source code location for version 3.x should change, and since the spec file should require some interventions, like removing patch files and some other stuff, does the package require a re-review? Thanks, A.

1 0

Is srpm allowed to violate a license if %prep restores compliance?
by Otto Urpelainen 22 Mar '21

22 Mar '21

Greetings, I am doing my first Fedora package review [1], for litehtml library. The source tree contains some bundled items that, in violation of original licenses, do not include a copy of the relevant licenses. There are two problem items: 1. gumbo-parser is included in source form and only contains link to the correct license in source files and repository README, but license text itself is not included like the license, Apache Software License 2.0, demands. 2. tools/xxd.exe is included as a (Windows) binary used during the build. It does not have any mention of licensing. Supposedly, it comes from Vim [2] and uses the Vim License [3], which also demands including copy of the license. Neither of these are actually required for anything. Fedora already has the gumbo-parser package that can be used, while the Windows binary is obviously useless, but the vim-common package contains a usable xxd binary. Since neither 1 or 2 is needed for anything, they can be removed in %prep section of the specfile. However, they still end up in the srpm. The fedora-review tool does not see this as a problem: "Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses." Is it really so that srpms are allowed have content that violates licenses, as long as %prep removes them? I am not able to find any explicit confirmation for this interpretation the the Licensing Guidelines [4]. Actually, the guidelines are generally do not make a clear distinction between srpms and binary rpms. Perhaps somebody on this list understands this topic and can explain how this situation should be handled? Regards, Otto [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939875 [2]: https://github.com/vim/vim/tree/master/src/xxd [3]: https://github.com/vim/vim/blob/master/LICENSE [4]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelin…

4 7

Ignoring backup-file-in-package
by Vitaly Dolgov 22 Mar '21

22 Mar '21

Hi, everybody! I'm working on a new RPM spec for Pd (Pure Data). And there is an error from `rpmlint` (actually, `fedpkg --release f33 lint`) that I cannot solve: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/lib64/pd/extra/bob~ This is not a backup file, but a directory and there are several of them. In Pd tilde in the end is used for so-called 'audio' objects, so I cannot exclude these paths. In which way should I modify spec to conform lint rules? Thanks, Vitaly

2 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging March 2021