Request to drop %(%{__id_u} -n) in preferred buildroot
by Axel Thimm
Hi,
I think the `preferred buildroot' is not really making sense. The
above has developed historically out of a misunderstanding in ancient
buildroot times.
When people were building as root and BuildRoots were defined as
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root, some considered "root" to mean
the uid of the builder. Later %release was added and some replaced
root with `id -un`. Even later some realized that root was referring
to the BuildRoot and in order to play safe added both.
I'm using %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root in my
packages and someone is now nitpicking on why not using the preferred
BuildRoot as given in the guidelines. Instead of locally fighting a
BuildRoot battle, I'd better get the guidelines fixed ;)
Also consider what this really is about: Deambiguifying the BuildRoot
per package makes sense as there may be several build processes
sharing the same filesystem (either locally or through NFS), but
deambiguifying the build user, too, means that we assume that the same
EVR package will be possibly built on the same filesystem by
different users? And even simultaneously?
It makes more sense to include a conditional epoch or target/arch in
the buildroot that the builder. In fact the best thing for a
buildsystem is to override the buildroot adding a build-id to it
anyway.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
16 years, 11 months
Revived License: tag proposal
by Jason L Tibbitts III
I have revived the License: tag proposal, simplified to a basic
standardization of the tags used for some common licenses. I have not
attempted to pick a list of those common licenses, although I have
provided some data on what License: tags are in use.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag
Again, I wish to remind folks that this is just a proposal.
- J<
16 years, 11 months
Where to put pixmaps
by Orion Poplawski
The latest apcupsd ships a Gtk gui and by default installs the following
pixmaps:
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/apcupsd.png
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/charging.png
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/gapc_prefs.png
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/onbatt.png
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/online.png
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/unplugged.png
The names are sufficiently generic enough to seem like this is a bad
spot. Is there a standard? Don't see anything on the wiki.
Thanks!
- Orion
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
17 years
--vendor fedora, rationale/motivation?
by Rex Dieter
Per
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FedoraDesktopEntryGuidelines:
The vendor prefix (desktop-file-install --vendor=...) must be set to
fedora".
I don't understand the rationale/motivation behind requiring '--vendor
fedora'
I can, however, see that desktop-file-install's current
implementation(*) of prepending %{vendor}- to the .desktop file name has
some problems/issues:
1. .desktop filename now varies from upstream
2. --vendor may change when/if Extras bits are pulled into Core and/or
RHEL.
3. *In particular*: when users start employing menu editors, since
most(all?) of them base their customizations on the .desktop file name.
-- Rex
(*) If desktop-file-install's implementation instead followed something
like kde's practice of using a vendor directory (e.g.
/usr/share/applications/kde), then (1) and (3) would no longer be an issue.
17 years
How to make a Provides based on package contents?
by Orion Poplawski
octave defines an API version in:
octave-2.9.9/src/version.h:
#define OCTAVE_API_VERSION "api-v22"
Modules compiled against one version will not load in another. I'd like
to get this put into the rpms like:
Provides: octave(api) = api-v22
This can be done automatically on the module side with something like:
Requires: octave(api) = %(octave-config -p API_VERSION)
But, how to extract this automatically from src/version.h in the octave
package itself?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
17 years
fedora-packaging meetings
by Axel Thimm
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 01:27:31PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 15:33 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > I'll probably not be able to attend today's meeting again, I'm
> > currently at job acquisition mode and that eats up my afternoon
> > timeslots.
> >
> > This will most likely continue until the end of the year. Should I
> > set back to make space for s/o else?
>
> Entirely up to you. If you feel like you won't be able to give it the
> time necessary, please let me know and we'll start the process to find
> someone to take your place.
I'm moving this to the list, I already lost two meetings w/o prior
notice (I didn't know that I wouldn't be able to attend until shortly
before w/o net access), and I don't know whether I'll be able to make
the next ones (I know I won't be able to make the very next one), and
I can't give a estimate of when free time will come by again. :/
I don't want to stall any work here as has happened in the past with
another member with little time to attend meetings/votes etc. I'd
either have to step back or my vote should get frozen for now (e.g.
the quorum recalculated with 1 vote less). I haven't managed to push
any of the improvements I proposed anyway, so it's not going to be a
big loss content-wise.
I've asked thl, but he's not up to yet another task, I could think of
Matthias Saou and/or Dominik (ratthan) as good candidates for this
committee.
Thanks!
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
17 years
static linking draft
by Patrice Dumas
Hello,
I think that the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage
could be ameliorated, and also I am opposed to one point.
* I think that in the motivation a link to Ulrich page could be
a good thing, since there are other valid arguments listed there:
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html
* As showed by the thread
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-November/msg00713....
there is a valid use of static libraries, namely in trusted environements
statically linking executables enhance their portability (although, sadly
since FC-5 this portability is limited to kernel 2.6.9). Doing the same
with dynamically linking is also possible (by providing the libs and using
ld hacks), but much less unconvenient. I think that this should be explained
in the draft.
* I think that asking for FESCO permission to ship a static lib is wrong,
for 3 reasons. One is that packagers may know better than FESCO members if
the package is in his area of expertise. Second because I think it is not
the FESCO role to participate in reviews. For me FESCO is about general
issues, or last resort arbitrage in case of dispute, and there is enough
work for FESCO already with those issues. If FESCO is meant to be involved
in reviews, it should grow in size over time. And the third reason is that
it unnecessarily slow down things and add work to reviewers/submitters.
--
Pat
17 years
Rex will be awol today
by Rex Dieter
Sorry for the late notice, but I'll miss (what's remaining of anyway)
the packaging comittee meeting today, I'm @ home with an ill child.
-- Rex
17 years
Fedora Packaging Member forking Fedora/Causing problems with community and users
by Christopher Stone
As you are all probably intimately aware by now, there has been
discussions about 3rd party repositories overriding base Fedora
packages and creating their own distribution which causes very serious
problems for users and damages the community.
I suggest that we have a comittee (possibly the packaging comittee)
create a wiki page which reviews 3rd party repositories for such
things as:
- Does the repository have a review process
- Does the repository abide by Fedora packaging standards
- Does the repository override Fedora base packages
and possibly other criteria.
This will allow users to see which 3rd party repositories play nice
with Fedora, and which ones fork Fedora to create their own
distributions, etc.
I FIND IT *VERY* DISTRUBING THAT ONE OF THESE REPOSITORY MAINTAINERS
IS ON THE FEDORA PACKAGING COMITTEE!
Here is an example IRC log that was taken just last night illustrating
the problem:
20:40:49 RyeBrye | Trying to get yum to install gtk2-devel
from the update repo I get 4 dependency errors
20:41:10 RyeBrye | the first one is gtk2 itself
20:41:17 XulChris | RyeBrye: caused by using atrpms no doubt
20:41:25 RyeBrye | hm
20:41:34 RyeBrye | How can I tell which packages I have
installed that came from atrpms?
20:42:00 XulChris | RyeBrye: disable the atrpms repo, and run
"yum list extras"
20:43:42 RyeBrye | I'm relatively new to Linux - but it seems
that the prevailing opinion is that atrpms = the devil
20:44:23 XulChris | RyeBrye: basically yes, we even attempted to
tell AT this, but he refused to listen and accused of of using "FUD"
techniques against his
repository
20:44:40 RyeBrye | Oh. AT is a person?
20:44:46 XulChris | Axel Thimm
20:45:49 XulChris | RyeBrye: we are trying to put measures in
place to prevent repositories from doing this
20:45:59 XulChris | see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250
20:50:06 RyeBrye | Sounds like I should get that "priorities"
plugin for yum going to prevent atrpms from going buck-wild installing
packages
20:50:39 errr | oh boy, more atrpms "fud" :P
20:50:52 XulChris | RyeBrye: yea, or if you just need a single
rpm, try installing it by hand using the rpm command instead of yum,
and if it doesnt install, get
the srpm file and rebuild the rpm from the srpm
20:51:08 XulChris | errr: lol
20:51:27 errr | that was really getting funny in my inbox
the other day
20:51:53 XulChris | ya, what did we get? like 80 messages within
24 hours? :)
20:52:00 errr | maybe more
20:52:00 errr | lol
20:52:04 XulChris | hehe
20:52:11 * rewster is pretty sure atrpms' rpm for Myth doesn't
build as-is on stock fedora
20:53:51 * RyeBrye is busy removing a whole lot of crap because
atrpms installed a gtk2 package - and just about everything he
installed from atrpms (mythtv)
depended on it
20:53:56 rewster | err srpm. and I think the OP mentioned
having AT for myth.
20:54:18 RyeBrye | or rather... yum is busy removing it
20:54:20 rewster | yeah... which is a bummer. A lot of the
faqs for myth just say "use atrpms"
22:09:56 RyeBrye | ATRpms really f*'ed up my system... it
installed a gtk2 that - when I removed it - removed just about every
darn package I had installed
because of dependencies... argggggg
22:10:18 EvilBob | RyeBrye: file a bug with them
22:10:24 autopsy | RyeBrye, don't use ATrpms.
22:10:27 siXy | again?
22:10:28 EvilBob | RyeBrye: PLEASE
22:10:42 errr | lol
22:10:49 RyeBrye | I'm learning my lesson...
22:10:56 RyeBrye | Does livna really have mythtv rpms?
22:10:59 siXy | or are you reffering to the first time?
22:11:02 siXy | no
22:11:05 EvilBob | RyeBrye: sorry you got burned but the
maintainer insists that there is not a problem with how he does things
22:11:12 errr | does Alex never come to this IRC?
22:11:24 autopsy | You mean Axel.
22:11:26 siXy | axel is an interesting guy...
22:11:28 EvilBob | errr: Alex who?
22:11:34 RyeBrye | Why doesn't he just make his own damned distro! argh
22:11:40 XulChris | EvilBob: axel thimm (AT)
22:11:43 errr | autopsy: oh maybe I do
22:11:45 siXy | some would say he does
22:11:50 EvilBob | RyeBrye: add that to your bug
22:12:20 errr | I dont follow the room all that close but
at least once or twice a week I notice someone in here with the ATrpms
sobstory
22:12:52 siXy | but anyways - do like i told you and
update, then enable atrpms grab myth and its explicit dependancies
then delete the atrpms repo
22:13:13 RyeBrye | siXy - yeah, you are right
22:13:31 EvilBob | never ever update with atRPMs enabled
22:13:44 siXy | its important you update fist tho otherwise
when you grab myth that will pull some atrpms pacakges that you really
dont want
22:14:11 RyeBrye | is there a way to update without it loading
a new kernel? I don't feel like rebuilding all my kernel extensions at
the moment
22:14:53 siXy | RyeBrye: do you have a copy of that line to
remove all atrpms pacakges? was trying to remember it earlier for
someone else
22:14:53 chemaja The bz that XulChris pointed us to
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250) will be
the key once it is implemented.
17 years
Conflicts in Core and Extras packages
by Thorsten Leemhuis
Hi all!
For those of you that are not on fedora-advisory-board find attached a
discussion with Michael Schwendt on that list that IMHO falls in the
area of the Packaging Committee. Could you guys please handle that? tia!
If the Committee thinks some parts of this discussion is the area of the
FESCo please notify me or that the PC members that are part of FESCo
bring it over to FESCo. Also please try to get Michael involved into
this discussion -- he seems to be interested in this so he's probably
one of the best people to find a solution for the issue.
But I don't think there is anything to do for FESCo *before* there are
general packaging rules in the guidelines that clarify when Conflicts
are allowed/acceptable and when not (for both Core and Extras). Further:
Extras is no second class citizen -- if Core packages are allowed to
conflict with other parts of Core then Extras packages should IMHO be
allowed to Conflict with packages of Core, too. Sure, that should be
controlled and I think FESCo in the future should approve each Conflict
before it hits the repo. And we should check the exiositing conflicts
-- but we need some guidelines from the PC first when conflicts are
acceptable and when not.
CU
thl
17 years