There is nothing wrong with FeedReader. I just thought copr is easier than getting it in the official repos.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Vít Ondruch" [vondruch(a)redhat.com]
Gesendet: Mi. 02.09.2015 13:00
An: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Betreff: Re: Copr for FeedReader
Dne 1.9.2015 v 22:00 janlukasgernert(a)freenet.de napsal(a):Hi,
I was advised to ask on this list for help regarding setting up a copr repository.
Why Copr and not Fedora official package? Is there something which conflicts with Fedora's Packaging Guidelines [1]? Otherwise I can't see Copr to be less maintenance effort then official package (except the initial review).
Vít
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
I just released verion 1.2 of my application "FeedReader":http://jangernert.github.io/feedreader/"FeedReader is a modern desktop application designed to complement existing web-based RSS accounts. It combines all the advantages of web based services like synchronisation across all your devices with everything you expect from a modern desktop application."I myself already maintain two ppa's for elementary/Ubuntu/Mint. There is a package in Arch user repositories and it's in Solus Project main repositories.Since I like to use Fedora from time to time and FeedReader fits the modern gnome applications really well imo, I would like to make it available to Fedora users as well.Can anyone help me with that and set up a copr repository for it? :)Jan Lukas Gernert
---
Alle Postfächer an einem Ort. Jetzt wechseln und E-Mail-Adresse mitnehmen! Rundum glücklich mit freenetMail
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht Ende-----
---
Alle Postfächer an einem Ort. Jetzt wechseln und E-Mail-Adresse mitnehmen! Rundum glücklich mit freenetMail
I just pushed the first release candidate for RPM rpm-4.13.0 into
rawhide. It now comes with the final syntax for rich dependencies. Also
we merged support for file signatures in the security.ima xattr and some
smaller fixes.
See http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-announce/2015-September/000051.html
for the announcement and changes since the alpha and
http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.13.0
for the overall changes.
As with the alpha release the focus for rawhide right now is not on the
shiny new RPM features but on the little changes and bug fixes and their
impact on existing packages.
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael
O'Neill, Charles Peters
===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2015-09-02)
===================================
Meeting started by jwb at 18:00:08 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-09-02/fesco.2015-09-02…
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (jwb, 18:00:09)
* #1427 List of release blocking deliverables (jwb, 18:04:00)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1427 (jwb, 18:04:00)
* LINK:
http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/23_Beta_TC1/Images/armhfp/
(nirik, 18:08:12)
* LINK:
http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/23_Beta_TC1/Docker/x86_64/
also seems not there. (nirik, 18:09:32)
* AGREED: Send current release blocking deliverable to rel-eng, QA,
and devel-announce (+6, 0, -0) (jwb, 18:16:00)
* jkurik to send things around (jwb, 18:16:42)
* Next steps are to look at a machine readable format, generate the
f24 list, and sort out how Atomic plays into this (jwb, 18:18:35)
* #1444 updates deliverables (jwb, 18:19:20)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1444 (jwb, 18:19:20)
* #1444 updates deliverables (jwb, 18:19:21)
* AGREED: Defer this topic for now (+6, 0, -0) (jwb, 18:21:18)
* #1467 F23 Changes - Progress at Change Checkpoint: Completion deadline
(jwb, 18:21:23)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1467 (jwb, 18:21:29)
* LINK: http://red.ht/1Us6OQv - this is the current list of tracking
bugs (jkurik, 18:27:08)
* thozza to comment in bugs without update and we will revisit next
week (jwb, 18:33:34)
* #1473 Changes approval process should reflect the existence of WGs
(jwb, 18:34:44)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1473 (jwb, 18:34:50)
* AGREED: Continue discussion in trac (+5, 0, -0) (jwb, 18:52:31)
* Next week's Chair (jwb, 18:52:41)
* jwb to chair next week (jwb, 18:53:16)
* Open Floor (jwb, 18:53:19)
Meeting ended at 18:57:26 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* jwb (112)
* nirik (46)
* number80 (32)
* thozza (28)
* jkurik (26)
* rishi (18)
* zodbot (14)
* kushal (6)
* sgallagh (5)
* paragan (5)
* maxamillion (2)
* ajax (0)
* hguemar (0)
* dgilmore (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2015-09-03 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2015-09-03 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2015-09-03 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2015-09-03 16:00 Thu UTC <-
2015-09-03 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST
2015-09-03 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST
2015-09-03 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST
2015-09-03 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST
------------------new day----------------------
2015-09-04 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT
2015-09-04 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT
2015-09-04 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST
2015-09-04 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13
= New business =
#topic #562 Bundling exception for MongoDB
.fpc 562
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/562
#topic #564 Bundling exception for apacheds-jdbm
.fpc 564
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/564
#topic #566 RPM file triggers
.fpc 566
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/566
#topic #567 Packaging Python 3 applications and modules for EPEL 7+
.fpc 567
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
report of the agenda items can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc,
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.
= Proposed System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Glibc_locale_subpackaging
Change owner(s):
* Mike Fabian <mfabian At redhat DOT com>
* Siddhesh Poyarekar <spoyarek AT redhat DOT com>
* Carlos O’Donell <codonell AT redhat DOT com>
This change should make it possible to install or uninstall locales individually.
== Detailed Description ==
Currently the file /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive contains all locales and is thus huge (103MB).
For small systems (and containers) it would be useful to be able to install only a small number of locales.
Recently we made it possible to install a small number of locales by supplying the rpm-macro “_install_langs”, for example
rpm -i -D _install_langs="en:de_DE" glibc-common.rpm
will install all English locales and all German locales which start with “de_DE”,
rpm -i -D _install_langs="en_US.utf8" glibc-common.rpm
will install only the en_US.utf8 locale,
rpm -i -D _install_langs="POSIX" glibc-common.rpm
will install nothing (but the POSIX/C is still available because it is builtin into glibc).
But this approach works only during an Anaconda based install when Anaconda supplies the _install_langs rpm-macro.
When glibc is updated later, the _install_langs macro will not be supplied on the command line during the update and the default value “all” of “_install_langs” from /usr/lib/rpm/macros will be used and all locales come back during an update.
Therefore, this solution is far from perfect.
It should be made possible to install and uninstall locales individually, for example by having a separate package for the locales for each language. Installing such a package would add these locales to locale-archive, uninstalling it would remove them.
Anaconda then needs to be changed to handle such language packages.
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
1. Figure out the best approach to to install/uninstall locales
2. Make sure that locales added manually by the user are not destroyed (currently they are lost when glibc is updated)
* Other developers:
Anaconda needs to be made aware of the new approach to handle installation/uninstallation of locales
* Release engineering:
I am not sure whether this has affects release engineering, probably the packages in the install image change when parts are split out of glibc-common.
* Policies and guidelines:
No, this change does not require updates to policies and guidelines.
* Trademark approval: not needed for this Change
--
Jan Kuřík
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
Missing expected images:
Cloud atomic Disk x86_64
Cloud base Disk i386
Images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20150901:
Robotics Live i386
Soas Live i386
Robotics Live x86_64
No images in 23 Branched 20150901 but not this.
Failed openQA tests: 1 of 20
ID: 1132 Test: x86_64 universal server_no_swap
Passed openQA tests: 19 of 20
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose
Hi,
at the moment golang packages are built only on primary architectures
(defined by %go_arches macro) due to golang compiler architecture
support. For secondary architectures gcc-go is available. In order to
provide an easy way for packagers to package golang projects for
secondary architectures as well, go-srpm-macros packages is introduced.
It provides basic macros that can be used within spec files. Currently
golang package ships /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.golang file, which
defines %gopath and %go_arches macros. As secondary architectures has no
golang package these macros are not available. Thus I am proposing to
move these macros to go-srpm-macros package and provide additional ones:
# Define arches for PA and SA
%golang_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm}
%gccgo_arches %{power64} s390x aarch64
%go_arches %{golang_arches} %{gccgo_arches}
# Where to set GOPATH for builds
%gopath %{_datadir}/gocode
# Minimal version of gcc providing gcc-go
%gccgo_min_vers 5.0.0
# Define commands for building
%golang_build go build -compiler gc
%gcc_go_build go build -compiler gccgo -gccgoflags "$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
# Define commands for testing
%golang_test go test -compiler gc
%gcc_go_test go test -compiler gccgo -gccgoflags "$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
Meaning of %golang_arches and %gccgo_arches is obvious. %go_arches is
extended for secondary architectures. Spec files using %go_arches macros
will not get touched by this change as it takes effect only on secondary
architectures. %golang_build, resp. %golang_test and %gcc_go_build,
resp. %gcc_go_test macros provides an easy way to run go build, resp. go
test commands for golang and gcc-go compiler without typing the minimal
list of options. The reason to define %golang_build and %gcc_go_build
instead of %go_build for both compilers is to cover a case when gcc-go
and golang have a different set of options. So packagers are aware of
which compiler/command they use for building. The same holds for the 'go
test' command.
Recommended use in spec file:
1) To choose the correct compiler:
%ifarch %{golang_arches}
BuildRequires: golang
%else
BuildRequires: gcc-go >= %{gccgo_min_vers}
%endif
2) To choose the correct command for building and testing:
%ifarch %{golang_arches}
%{golang_build} -o bin/binary %{import_path}/binary
%{golang_test} %{import_path}/binary
%else
%{gcc_go_build} -o bin/binary %{import_path}/binary
%{gcc_go_test} %{import_path}/binary
%endif
At the same time packaging guidelines for golang will be extended to
provide information about secondary architectures.
What are the steps to accomplish this task?
1) finish review of go-srpm-macros [1]
2) add go-srpm-macros as a run-time dependency of redhat-rpm-config for
f21-f23 and el6
3) remove /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.golang from golang
4) update packaging guidelines
I will fill all necessary bugs/tickets if needed and update packaging
guidelines.
Florian, I would like to make go-srpm-macros a run-time dependency of
redhat-rpm-config. Thus I believe go-srpm-macros needs an extra caution
so it does not break minimal buildroot. Can you check out the
macros.go-srpm file in the package [1]? The file define only one line
macros, no %if nor %ifarch.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241156
Any feedback and questions are welcomed and appreciated.
Thanks to all involved in helping us.
Kind Regards
Jan Chaloupka