Group tag for Java libraries and their documentation
by Mary Ellen Foster
Going by the options proposed by rpmlint, the only possible tag for
any development library -- whatever language it's written in -- is
"Development/Libraries". At the same time, there are lots of packages
using "Development/Libraries/Java"; on my computer,
rpm -q -g Development/Libraries/Java | wc -l
yields 46 of them.
I also have the same question about "Documentation" vs.
"Development/Documentation" for javadoc packages -- rpmlint only
accepts the former, but a nontrivial number of packages use the
latter.
So what's the official verdict on this?
Thanks,
MEF
--
Mary Ellen Foster -- http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/
Informatik 6: Robotics and Embedded Systems, Technische Universität München
and ICCS, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
15 years, 4 months
adding INSTALL="install -p" to %configure
by Till Maas
Hi,
the current Guidelines recommend to preserve timestamps when adding commands
that copy files to a spec file:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
Currently this is often in reviews also checked for commands that are e.g. in
upstreams Makefile. If you think that this should be done, can you please
adjust the Guidelines to reflect this and add "INSTALL='install -p'" to
%configure, to make this automatically happen for packages using autotools?
Regards,
Till
15 years, 4 months
MinGW subpackages of OCaml packages
by Richard W.M. Jones
So as I mentioned before we have an OCaml Windows cross-compiler as
part of the Fedora MinGW project:
http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel/
(click 'manifest' then 'ocaml' or the 'ocaml-*' subdirectories)
mingw32-ocaml - the cross-compiler (native Fedora prog)
mingw32-ocaml-calendar - cross-compiled OCaml Calendar library
mingw32-ocaml-csv - cross-compiled OCaml CSV library
mingw32-ocaml-curses - cross-compiled OCaml curses bindings
mingw32-ocaml-extlib - cross-compiled OCaml extlib (library)
mingw32-ocaml-findlib - (this just has a single config file)
mingw32-ocaml-lablgl - cross-compiled OCaml OpenGL bindings
mingw32-ocaml-lablgtk - cross-compiled OCaml Gtk bindings
mingw32-ocaml-libvirt - cross-compiled OCaml libvirt bindings
mingw32-ocaml-xml-light - cross-compiled OCaml XML library
When we were doing the original packaging, we explored the option of
building the MinGW packages as subpackages of the native Fedora
packages, eg: the gnutls specfile would contain the '-n mingw32-gnutls'
subpackage. This would have made it simpler to keep the packages in
synch with native Fedora, but we felt that native packagers wouldn't
be so happy about this. They wouldn't be expert in MinGW packaging,
and would drop the MinGW subpackage at the first sign of trouble.
However, since I'm in the unique position of maintaining most of the
corresponding ocaml-* (native) and mingw32-ocaml-* (cross-compiled)
packages, I would like to ask whether I can create the packages above
and others in future as subpackages of the already approved ocaml-*
native packages.
I'm not looking for any exception to the relevant packaging
guidelines, which I would try to follow (excepting any mistakes).
If you want to see what some RPMs look like, see:
http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/fedora-10/x86_64/RPMS/
Thoughts? I set follow-ups to the fedora-packaging list.
Rich.
15 years, 4 months
Updates to Eclipse Plugin packaging guidelines
by Andrew Overholt
Hi,
I have a few updates to the Eclipse Plugin packaging guidelines. They
include some clarifications, typos, and updates for Eclipse 3.4.x. The
only bit of real substance is modifying the template to note how we're
using the dropins mechanism for plugin installation in 3.4.x and above.
I've attached a diff 'cause I don't think I can commit it. Can someone
else?
Thanks,
Andrew
15 years, 4 months
Task work needed
by Jesse Keating
Some small busy work needed, somebody to ensure each Review Guideline
item in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines has a
matching guideline entry in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines (or subpages).
Bonus points for creating links in the ReviewGuidelines to the matching
rule in the Guidelines.
Case in point; Can anybody tell me where the guideline exists for:
- SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be
placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg
itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
? (this is suddenly a lot more relevant as rpm picks up pkg-config deps
automatically and is dragging in quite a lot of -devel packages on
otherwise non-devel installs due to .pc file placement)
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
15 years, 4 months
Problems with the .info file
by Fabian Affolter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
As I mentioned in the subject of this message, I have a problem with the
.info file in a package. I'm able to build the package locally but mock
fails. I guess that I missed something...
Spec file (only the relevant parts):
...
Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info
...
%post
/sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/%{name}.info %{_infodir}/dir || :
...
%preun
if [ "$1" = 0 ]; then
/sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/%{name}.info %{_infodir}/dir || :
fi
...
%files -f %{name}.lang
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README TODO
%{_infodir}/%{name}.info.gz
...
mock complains about installed but not packaged file
'/usr/share/info/dir' . Did I miss a directory?
Can please anybody give me a hint? Thanks in advance.
Kind regards,
Fabian
SRPM: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wol-0.7.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
SPEC: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wol.spec
- --
Fingerprint: 2F6C 930F D3C4 7E38 6AFA 4EB4 E23C D2DD 36A4 397F
Fedora always leads and never follows.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkk6yAMACgkQ4jzS3TakOX9pmQCfTOFxTL4XFBuGq4+par9+lJ41
NYQAn1/D9Ct29WNWLxFOz39hZhO19plX
=J7BS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
15 years, 4 months