packaging February 2011

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

26 participants
17 discussions

invalid soname question?
by Bruno Wolff III 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Am I getting the warning below because there is a period in the lib name? mygui-devel.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libMyGUI.OgrePlatform.so If so, is it really an error?

3 7

heimdal packaging
by Orion Poplawski 29 Mar '11

29 Mar '11

I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001 heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence. One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package? -- 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

2 2

ExclusiveArch and dependencies
by Björn Persson 17 Mar '11

17 Mar '11

I have a question regarding the use of ExclusiveArch. At https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#ExcludeArch_.26_ExclusiveArch it says that only packages which are exclusively architecture-specific should use ExclusiveArch. Is it appropriate to extend this to packages which aren't architecture-specific themselves, but which depend on a package that is available only on some architectures? The reason why I'm asking is that some packages with Ada code which I maintain can't be built on architectures where Gnat, the Ada compiler, is unavailable, and apparently this annoys the people who work on secondary architectures. The proposed workaround is to add ExclusiveArch entries to the Ada packages, listing the architectures where the gcc-gnat package is available, and then update those entries when someone manages to bootstrap Gnat on a new architecture. I'd like to know if this use of ExclusiveArch is acceptable, or if I'll run the risk of being told that it's against the rules and must be removed. Björn Persson

4 4

Remove requirement to use macros for paths
by Toshio Kuratomi 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Recently the question of why we require people to macroize their paths in spec files (and by extension, patch build scripts to use the expansion of our macros instead of hardcoded values) came up. FPC only knew of one, not so great reason: if the paths were to change, for instance a change in the FHS, then spec files that use macros (in both the spec file and the expansion of those macros is used in the upstream build scripts) would only need a rebuild to pick up th new paths. I then opened this ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/67 for FPC to consider dropping using the directories as a requirement. As recorded in the comments, some people have stepped forward with the additional rationale that third-parties rebuilding our packages may wish to install their rebuilds into a separate directory structure for their own tracking purposes. Having directory paths in macros allow them to do that by redefining %{_prefix}, %{_sharedstatedir}, and a handful of other toplevel directory macros. If we allowed hardcoding of directories, then they'd have to edit the spec file to achieve the same goal. If people have additional reasons that macroizing all directory paths make sense, please let us know (here or as a comment in the ticket). Then FPC can decide whether to relax this rule or update the rule with information about why we have it in place. Thanks, -Toshio

8 9

About removing libtool file
by Sergio Belkin 24 Feb '11

24 Feb '11

Hi, It's stated at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines: "MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built" Is the same to exclude .la libtool archives that *remove" them? In other words is compliant a spec file if does that? Thanks in advance! -- -- Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com LPIC-2 Certified

4 6

Question about File listeng in the spec file
by Sergio Belkin 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

Hi At http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Pro… it states "A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)." But what about a subpackage "static" (library)? What if there are some basic documentation files common to both non-static and static packages? Thanks in advance! -- -- Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com LPIC-2 Certified

3 6

Ada packaging guidelines draft
by Björn Persson 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

Pavel Zhukov and I have been working on some guidelines for packaging Ada code. I think the draft looks fairly good now. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Landgraf/Packaging_Ada I saw in the wiki that drafts should be announced on this list, so that's what I'm doing now. The draft is on the agenda for the FPC meeting on Wednesday. https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/56 Björn Persson

1 0

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting Agenda for Wednesday, February 23, 2011
by Tom Callaway 16 Feb '11

16 Feb '11

The Fedora Packaging Committee will meet next Wednesday, Feb 23, 2011 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. (This is our usual weekly meeting time and location, but it never hurts to say it.) Here is our tentative agenda: * Packaging Ada draft - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/56 : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Landgraf/Packaging_Ada * Systemd Guidelines (if outstanding issues are resolved) - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/31 : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft ===== All Fedora Packaging Committee members should read the proposal in ticket #60, and vote in that ticket before the next meeting: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/60 Thanks, ~tom == Fedora Project

1 0

mime type not associating with gui application
by Erik Blankinship 15 Feb '11

15 Feb '11

How do I create my spec file so that I my gui application can be launched by double clicking a filetype it is associated with via mimetype? This is what I've done so far: - I have updated my .desktop file so that it includes MimeType=application/x-supes-saved; - In my spec I have successfully used xdg-mime and xdg-icon-resource so that files with my custom extension (.supes) has my custom icon. But when I double click on one of my files, I am prompted with a modal dialog "There is no application installed for Superman Saved Game files". When I opt to "Select Application" my application is not listed either. (The application's desktop icon is successfully installed and runs under the application menu). Any suggestions? Thank you.

2 4

HTML format preferred over INFO documents
by Jan Kratochvil 15 Feb '11

15 Feb '11

Hi, Jan Pazdziora has suggested to package HTML documentation instead of the currently commonly packaged INFO documentation. Wrote the draft proposal for it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/HtmlDocs Are there any comments are can it go for the FPC Trac ticket? Thanks, Jan

4 6

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging February 2011