-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Is it permissible to use a single compat package to provide different 'compat' binary packages on different Fedora releases?
The specific use case is for Vala: our Fedora packaging now allows for parallel installation; you already can rebuild and install Vala packages with different API levels side by side.
Vala upstream tends to create new API releases quite often, however, and given that sometimes packages stop compiling against the newer API, providing API-specific compatibility versions seems to be a lot of work (and the package would have to be retired as soon as the targeted release is EOLed).
Does the FPC allow having a single 'compat-vala' Git module, that would target the API level one lower than the one shipped in the main vala package, for every supported Fedora release? The package will be very similar to the main vala one and changes can just be cherry-picked, so maintenance is no problem.
Thanks,
- -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus@irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
On 05/04/2012 08:12 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 05/04/2012 05:47 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Does the FPC allow having a single 'compat-vala' Git module, that would target the API level one lower than the one shipped in the main vala package, for every supported Fedora release?
I'm ok with that
Thanks; in addition, my reviewer came up with an example of an unversioned compat package (libwbxml-compat), so it looks like there's also precedent for this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787193
On 05/06/2012 05:11 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On 05/04/2012 08:12 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 05/04/2012 05:47 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Does the FPC allow having a single 'compat-vala' Git module, that would target the API level one lower than the one shipped in the main vala package, for every supported Fedora release?
I'm ok with that
Such unversioned "compat-packages" would implement "rolling compatibility", i.e. would not provide "long-term compatibility with a specific version to end-users", but would only provide a "'one fedora release cycle' delay to Fedora packagers".
I do not see much sense in this and would prefer such packages to be banned.
Thanks; in addition, my reviewer came up with an example of an unversioned compat package (libwbxml-compat), so it looks like there's also precedent for this.
Well, you can probably find precedences for all kind of packaging mistakes in Fedora ... ;)
Ralf
Is there a way to verify if an application is installed , from within a SPEC file ? Maybe using %verifyscript section ?
Thanks, -Kamal.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Kamal Ahmed kamal2222ahmed@yahoo.com wrote:
Is there a way to verify if an application is installed , from within a SPEC file ? Maybe using %verifyscript section ?
For build time, BuildRequires. For runtime, Requires.
-J
Thanks, -Kamal.
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Jon,
So now i have the following requires:
Requires: python-devel.i386 Requires: postgresql84-server.i386 Requires: postgresql84-python.i386
and the following BuildRequires:
BuildRequires: gcc = 4.1.2 BuildRequires: make >= 3.81 BuildRequires: postgresql84-devel = 8.4.9
and i get rpm buid fine, and get the following message:
Requires: /bin/bash /usr/bin/env libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libnsl.so.1 libpq.so.5 libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.1) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2) librt.so.1 postgresql84-python.i386 postgresql84-server.i386 python(abi) = 2.4 python-devel.i386 rtld(GNU_HASH)
So now when i install this rpm via the "rpm -ivh myapplication.rpm" i will get Warnings, IF the Requires are not installed
and if i do "yum install myapplication", it will majically install the pre-requisites ? correct ?
Queation is how would yum KNOW "myappliction"
Thanks, -Kamal.
From: Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com To: Kamal Ahmed kamal2222ahmed@yahoo.com; Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] use of %verifyscript
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Kamal Ahmed kamal2222ahmed@yahoo.com wrote:
Is there a way to verify if an application is installed , from within a SPEC file ? Maybe using %verifyscript section ?
For build time, BuildRequires. For runtime, Requires.
-J
Thanks, -Kamal.
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
-- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
On Mon, 7 May 2012 08:54:09 -0700 (PDT), KA (Kamal) wrote:
Jon,
So now i have the following requires:
Requires: python-devel.i386 Requires: postgresql84-server.i386 Requires: postgresql84-python.i386
Typically, one does not add architecture specifiers, such as ".i386", to Requires in a spec file, but relies on package tools to choose packages made for a compatible architecture. On platforms, where the %_isa macro is defined,
$ rpm --eval %_isa (x86-64)
you can use it to create arch-specific Requires:
Requires: python-devel%{?_isa}
Only do it if you feel confident enough, of course.
and if i do "yum install myapplication", it will majically install the pre-requisites ? correct ?
Queation is how would yum KNOW "myappliction"
Publish your packages in a local or remote _repository_ of packages. Use "createrepo" tool, and point Yum at that repository.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jon Ciesla -
Kamal Ahmed -
Michael Schwendt -
Michel Alexandre Salim -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rex Dieter