packaging November 2006

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

23 participants
16 discussions

Request to drop %(%{__id_u} -n) in preferred buildroot
by Axel Thimm 05 Jan '07

05 Jan '07

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

10 23

Revived License: tag proposal
by Jason L Tibbitts III 14 Dec '06

14 Dec '06

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<

5 11

Where to put pixmaps
by Orion Poplawski 30 Nov '06

30 Nov '06

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

3 2

--vendor fedora, rationale/motivation?
by Rex Dieter 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

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.

4 6

How to make a Provides based on package contents?
by Orion Poplawski 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

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

3 5

fedora-packaging meetings
by Axel Thimm 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

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

3 3

static linking draft
by Patrice Dumas 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

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.ht… 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

2 2

Rex will be awol today
by Rex Dieter 21 Nov '06

21 Nov '06

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

1 0

Fedora Packaging Member forking Fedora/Causing problems with community and users
by Christopher Stone 21 Nov '06

21 Nov '06

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.

8 16

Conflicts in Core and Extras packages
by Thorsten Leemhuis 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

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

8 15

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging November 2006