What is the upstream name of the python module refer to?
by Chen Lei
Hi all,
We now start to introduce a LGPL Qt python bindings[1] into Fedora[2],
there are three different bindings available in that site to provide
bindings for qt, qt-mobilty and libmeegotouch seperately.
Refer to the fedora naming guideline, we should name a python module
as python-$NAME which the $NAME indicates the upstream name of the
python modules. I don't know what the upstream name exactly refer to -
the tarball name, the name of the module we type to import it in a
script, the name in the website, or anything else.
Take PySide for an example:
1: pyside-qt4.6+0.4.1.tar.bz2(tarball name pyside, module name PySide,
website name PySide)
2 :pyside-mobility-0.1.0.tar.bz2(tarball name pyside-mobility, module
name QtMobility, website name PySide Mobility)
3: python-meegotouch-0.1.0.tar.bz2(tarball name python-meegotouch,
module name MeeGo.Touch, website name MeegoTouch)
Is there anyone can clarify the meaning of the upstream name of a
python module? Thanks for your attention!
[1]http://www.pyside.org/
[2]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623425
Regards,
Chen Lei
13 years, 7 months
GConf2 scriptlet
by Parag Nemade
Hi all,
I saw that when I am using new GConf2 scriptlets in packages,
rpmlint is giving output like
W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
Is this ok then while reviewing package? This was not the case for old
GConf2 scriptlets.
I have already seen macros.gconf2 where rm command is used.
Regards,
Parag.
13 years, 7 months
missing makefiles for java-1.6.0-openjdk in git
by Jiri Vanek
Hi!
Makefiles have been deleted for java-1.6.0-openjdk during dist-git
conversion. Can I ask why? And when/how they will be replaced?
Nothing more that I'm wondering about it....
Best regards
Jiri Vanek
13 years, 7 months
Open Seat on the Fedora Packaging Committee
by Tom Callaway
The Fedora Packaging Committee has an open seat. Are you interested in
helping to decide the packaging standards and guidelines for Fedora? Are
you familiar with the inner workings of RPM and its spec file magic? Do
you make the wiki cry? Does trac tremble in your wake? Are you
clinically insane? (Well, the last one isn't mandatory, but it helps.)
Members of the Fedora Packaging Committee get:
* My neverending gratitude
* The ability to tell people "I'm on the Fedora Packaging Committee"
* Good karma
* Cake
The FPC meets weekly on IRC, Tuesdays at 1600 UTC
If you're interested in this seat, please email me.
~spot
13 years, 7 months
Resigning from FPC
by Hans de Goede
Hi Spot et All,
After missing todays fpc meeting as usual, I've come to the conclusion
that the current meeting time just is not working for me. So rather
then taking up a seat and never showing I've decided that it is better
for me to resign from the fpc and create a place for someone who
hopefully will have a better attendance rate then me.
Regards,
Hans
13 years, 7 months
Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting Summary - September 1 2010
by Tom Callaway
Summary of the September 1, 2010 meeting of the Fedora Packaging Committee
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-09-01/fedora-meeting...
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-09-01/fedora-meeting...
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-09-01/fedora-meeting...
Present:
Tom Callaway [CHAIR] (spot)
Jon Ciesla (limburger)
Ralf Corsepius (racor)
Rex Dieter (rdieter)
Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
Jason Tibbitts (tibbs|h)
= D Packaging Draft=
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/7
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/D%2Bpackaging%2Bguideline%2Bdraft
We discussed the D packaging draft, but there were still some remaining
concerns. It was unclear as to how the %{d_optflags} were actually
passed to ldc, as this is not illustrated in the template. In addition,
it was agreed that it would be helpful for the FPC to see an example
package which meets the guidelines proposed in the draft.
= Bundled Library Draft =
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/8
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Library_Packaging_Draft
We also discussed the Bundled Library Guidelines draft changes. They
were amended slightly to require that packages which have approved
exceptions also include a comment documenting this fact.
This draft was unanimously approved (6 +1, no 0, no -1).
= Should FESCo need to ratify FPC approvals? =
The FPC considered the question of whether it needed FESCo to ratify FPC
approvals. Tom Callaway explained that when the FPC was created,
because it was initially a group with himself as the only membership, he
set it up that all FPC changes would require FESCo ratification, and it
has evolved from that to the present.
After discussions of the merit and risks of ratification vs
independence, the chair proposed the following change:
The FPC will no longer require FESCo ratification of approved
drafts/changes, however, any FPC member who feels an approved
draft/change would benefit from explicit FESCo review and
ratification may request it.
This change was unanimously approved (6 +1, no 0, no -1).
In accordance with this change, Jason Tibbitts and Jon Ciesla requested
that the Bundled Library Guidelines draft be sent to FESCo for
ratification (because FESCo had requested it).
= Static Libraries and PIC =
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/9
The issue of handling static libraries and PIC was raised again.
It was not known whether it is possible to determine whether a static
library is PIC or not, Tom will follow up on this issue and the ticket
will be revisited at the next meeting.
= Next Meeting =
The next meeting of the Fedora Packaging Committee will be on September
8, 2010 at 1600 UTC.
Thanks,
~spot
13 years, 7 months