packaging September 2011

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
7 discussions

Review Guidelines on -devel packages
by Michael Schwendt 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines | MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix | (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) | must go in a -devel package. [19] [19] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages Based on just the ReviewGuidelines, some packagers and reviewers still get this wrong and create -devel packages for plugin .so libraries. In particular because it is a MUST. The linked Packaging Guidelines page on "Devel Packages" makes it a SHOULD and also mentions a rule of thumb, but apparently this is still not clear enough. How about this? MUST: If a package contains library files with a numeric suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1 or libfoo.so.1.1), extra care must be taken to distinguish between libraries needed at run-time and libraries needed only when compiling/building software. Library files needed only at build-time must be put into a -devel package. [19] -- Fedora release 16 (Verne) - Linux 3.1.0-0.rc6.git0.3.fc16.x86_64 loadavg: 0.02 0.08 0.12

2 2

Ban autoloading of MPI environment
by Susi Lehtola 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

Hi, the MPI guidelines currently state "If the packager wishes to provide alternatives support, it MUST be placed in a subpackage ..." However, it has become clear that this statement is not clear enough and warrants an additional specification. The guidelines were written as to be fair to all people independent of the compiler and runtime they are using. However, some MPI runtimes have been misbehaving by autoloading their environment with a file in /etc/profile.d placed in the runtime package (BZ #647147). This has disunited the user interface and caused many problems for package builders trying to compile a serial version of an MPI-aware code (see for instance BZ #737043). I am thus proposing that the MPI guidelines be clarified by the additional statement "MUST: If the maintainer wants to provide autoloading support for the MPI environment, it must be placed in a separately installable subpackage." (see text in bold italics at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MPI ) -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

2 2

[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway 22 Sep '11

22 Sep '11

Here are the latest changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines: --- The section of the Packaging Guidelines regarding Compiler Flags has been updated and improved, most notably, to document handling of PIE enabled packages. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags --- The prohibition against unnecessary explicit library requires has been updated with an example of when explicit library requires are useful and allowed. The example addresses packages that use features of a library added after the library initially adopted its current SONAME. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires --- An additional md5 implementation was added to the list of bundling exceptions: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries&… --- These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC). Many thanks to Kevin Fenzi, Adam Jackson, and all of the members of the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing these guidelines. As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure Thanks, ~spot

1 0

Systemd upgrades and user-selected auto-start
by Stephen Gallagher 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

Our current scriptlets for systemd result in an unacceptable upgrade case. Specifically, it reverts all services to their default enabled/disabled status. We should allow packagers to include scripts that keep the user-selected auto-start between upgrades. For example, HTTPD does not start automatically when installed (because its default configuration is not necessarily useful). However, once it's been set up by a user and selected for autostart with ckconfig (for example), we should not be disabling it on upgrade. The reverse might also be true. In a hardened environment, a service that is configured for auto-start by default might be disabled for security reasons. Turning it back on by default during an upgrade could then be viewed as a security vulnerability. I think the guidelines need to be relaxed so that scriptlets like the following could be added: %triggerun -- sssd < %{version}-%{release} if /sbin/chkconfig --level 3 sssd ; then /bin/systemctl --no-reload enable sssd.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : fi if /sbin/chkconfig --level 5 sssd ; then /bin/systemctl --no-reload enable sssd.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : fi /sbin/chkconfig --del sssd >/dev/null 2>&1 || : In this case, we check to see if the sssd service was running in runlevel three or five, and if so we enable it on upgrade. (Yes, I'm aware that this is currently in violation of packaging standards, but SSSD was converted prior to the standard being decided upon).

2 1

how to refer to files in the tarball
by Kalpa Welivitigoda 19 Sep '11

19 Sep '11

Hi, I have a source tar of a package that I wish to package for fedora. To install that there is a bash script should be done and that bash file is inside the tar. How can I refer to that bash file (in the spec file) in that tar to run it? if the tar name is abc.tar.gz. the install.sh file in just inside abc.tar.gz. Any help? -- Best Regards, Kalpa Pathum Welivitigoda http://about.me/callkalpa

3 4

noarch vs missing deps
by Farkas Levente 16 Sep '11

16 Sep '11

hi, the same problem happened against which i try to discuss earlier. gstreamer-java is pure java package so it'd have to package as a noarch package. which is true and can be working. but it has a subpackage gstreamer-java-swt which is depend on eclipse-swt but still arch independent. but when i try to build it in fedora's mock it goes most of the time (as the noarch packages used to) to the ppc build server which are try to satisfy it's buildreq. but it's depend on libswt3-gtk2 (which is provided by eclipse-swt). but as eclipse can't be build on ppc (at least i assume so) the ppc build server can't build it. even if the resulting jar can be used/run even on windows!? the worst part that i can't write ExcludeArch into a noarch rpm since rpm do not allow it. what is the solution? do i really have to make it none noarch? or try richard's solution ie. try a few build and if it's choose x86 build server then i lucky!:-( regards. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

1 0

Removing files with RPM's build using python distutils
by Raoul Thill 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

Hi, I am currently experimenting with packaging python projects using the distutils library. The packaging itself works fine, but I am having problems removing outdated/removed files when incrementing the RPM release counter or the version number. I thought that would be the RPM way :( Could someone explain me how to remove files using an rpm package in general, as I don't find anything related on the fedora packaging wiki pages? Example project structure: project-root -package1 --file1 -package2 --file1 --file2 Now packaging the project-root with both python packages works fine. When removing the file2 from package2, the file is no longer in the new resulting rpm with release=2 (0.1.1-2) or newer version (0.1.2-1), but updating the package on the destination server using yum update, does not remove the file. I suppose that I need to include a macro to remove files on the destination server.... As my current projects are all hosted on GIT repos, would there be an easier way to fulfill that task? Many thanks for some help on that point. Kind regards, Raoul

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging September 2011