Tcl packaging guidelines proposal
by Michael Thomas
I sent this proposal to f-m-l about a week ago to gather comments, and
there were no serious disagreements with the proposal which have not yet
been addressed (thanks to Tibbs and Toshio for their feedback).
Basically, I want to establish a set of guidelines for packaging Tcl
extensions, as we already have guidelines for other popular scripting
languages. In addition to making Tcl packages more consistent with each
other, it will also help work toward fixing my pet-peeve bug (bz #226893)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Tcl
Please let me know if I need to do anything to help get these draft
guidelines adopted.
Thanks,
--Wart
15 years, 9 months
Contributor License Agreement (CLA)
by Brad Bell
I would like to understand a special case with respect to the CLA. It is
the case where the Fedora packager is also the copyright holder for the
package being contributed.
I am the original author and copyright holder for a package. That
package is currently distributed with the GPLv2 license. If I sign the
CLA and complete the package contribution, does this mean that the
original upstream source would no longer covered by the GPLv2 license,
but rather by the CLA ?
15 years, 9 months
Executable "Source:"es
by Axel Thimm
Hi,
maybe not an FPC question, but I'll have a go:
Since F9 Sources in the CVS "lost" their permission bit. For example
the nx specfile has
| Source11: nxfind-provides.sh
|
| %define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
| %define __find_provides %{SOURCE11}
a classical approach when one needs to extend/alter the default
automatic dependency calculations.
How can I teach CVS/koji that my Source11 should please get its
execution bit back on? I could mess around in the specfile with chmod
on the sources in the %sourcedir or try to be a bit cleaner by copying
around the script and messing with its permissions there, but I think
that's all not really clean and a bad workaround in general confusing
anyone reading through the specfile (or trying to maintain it ;)
Now the FPC question: We had agreed that sources should be either 0644
or 0755, did this change for F9 and later?
If not is this something to report on another list? Which one?
Bugzilla perhaps against koji?
If yes, would this be worth while sending out to
fedora-devel-announce?
Merry Xmas and enjoy the new year everyone!
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
15 years, 9 months
Package content question
by Richard Fearn
Hello,
I've just been reading the "Code Vs Content" section of the "Packaging
Guidelines" document:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
There is a list of content which is permissable, but in that list it
says "Example files... are not considered content".
Does this mean that example files aren't content and shouldn't be
included, or does it mean that they're code rather than content and
can be included?
(php-pdb includes various sample files as part of its documentation,
and I'm unsure whether they can be included or not.)
Thanks
Richard Fearn
15 years, 9 months
Correct name for php-pdb package?
by Richard Fearn
Hi,
I have a quick question about package naming.
I'd like to package php-pdb, which is a PHP library for manipulating
Palm OS databases:
http://php-pdb.sourceforge.net/
Since the name already starts with "php-", I'm not sure what the
package should be called - "php-pdb" or "php-php-pdb".
I did notice that the package for PHP-IDN is called php-idn, so I
suspect I should call my package "php-pdb". Is that correct?
Thanks,
Richard Fearn
15 years, 9 months
Procedures question
by Brad Bell
Perhaps this is not the proper list for the question below. If so, would
you please direct me to the proper place.
I am new to Fedora packaging and am trying to work through the details
for getting a package into the Fedora distribution. As per the
instructions on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
I followed the steps:
"Read the Guidlines",
"Create a Bugzilla Accoun"t,
"Join the important Mailing Lists",
"Read Other Submissions",
"Make a Package",
"Upload Your package",
"Create Your Review Request".
Now I am "Watching for Feedback", but do not seem to have gotten any; see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=416761
Did I make some mistake in the steps above that is causing the request
to be ignored ?
15 years, 9 months
Next FPC meeting: 2008-01-08?
by Jason L Tibbitts III
The next FPC meeting would normally fall on new year's day,
2008-01-01, which is not a good date for many, and one week before is
obviously out for most folks. So the current proposal is for January
eighth, 2008-01-08. Current votes on #fedora-meeting are:
racor: 08/01 would be fine with me
tibbs: So +1 for January 8th, 2008-01-08.
abadger1999: +1
lutter: +1
If anyone else has an opinion, please weigh in.
- J<
15 years, 9 months
Heads up: tomcat6 package into Fedora 9
by Fernando Nasser
Hi guys,
We will be working on importing JPackage.org Tomcat 6 RPM into Fedora 9
(will be submitted as a new package).
I'd like to keep the tomcat5 package around as well, as some people may
want to use the old version still. The packages have versioned names so
they can be installed in parallel. Would that be OK?
Regards to all,
Fernando
15 years, 9 months
Best way of patching sources for changed libbeagle?
by Sebastian Vahl
I need some help with the new libbeagle-0.3.0. This one is listed in
pkg-config with "libbeagle-1.0". The configure script of kerry (and also
brasero and yelp) are explicit checking for "libbeagle-0.0".
Upstream hasn't catched up the new beagle, yet, so I have to figure out what
is the best way of preparing my package (kerry) for the new libbeagle
version. And here I need some help because I'm not very familiar with
configure scripts. :)
My attempt here is to avoid a patch and change the libbeagle version with sed:
> %build
> unset QTDIR || : ; . /etc/profile.d/qt.sh
> export QTLIB=${QTDIR}/lib QTINC=${QTDIR}/include
>
> # libbeagle-version is now 0.1
> sed -i
> 's/LIBBEAGLE_PACKAGES="libbeagle-0.0"/LIBBEAGLE_PACKAGES="libbeagle-1.0"/'
> configure
>
> %configure --disable-rpath --disable-debug
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
A scratch build seems to be fine:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=285293
But I think there would be better options to to this.
Sebastian
15 years, 10 months