Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-09-19 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2013-09-19 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2013-09-19 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2013-09-19 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2013-09-19 16:00 Thu UTC <-
2013-09-19 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST
2013-09-19 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST
2013-09-19 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST
2013-09-19 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST
------------------new day----------------------
2013-09-20 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT
2013-09-20 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT
2013-09-20 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST
2013-09-20 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12
= Followups =
(likely tabled until next week)
#topic #339 software collections in Fedora
.fpc 339
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339
= New business =
#topic #344 Wrong library name conflicts solution
.fpc 344
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/344
#topic #345 Ruby guidelines: Filtering automatic provides
.fpc 345
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/345
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
report of the agenda items can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until
the following meeting.
10 years, 7 months
Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-09-12 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2013-09-12 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2013-09-12 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2013-09-12 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2013-09-12 16:00 Thu UTC <-
2013-09-12 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST
2013-09-12 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST
2013-09-12 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST
2013-09-12 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST
------------------new day----------------------
2013-09-13 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT
2013-09-13 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT
2013-09-13 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST
2013-09-13 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12
= New business =
#topic #339 software collections in Fedora
.fpc 339
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339
#topic #344 Wrong library name conflicts solution
.fpc 344
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/344
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
report of the agenda items can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until
the following meeting.
10 years, 7 months
I'm curious about its release number
by Christopher Meng
Hi,
I'm curious about the release tag of python-libcloud.
Currently dbruno writes down:
2013-09-09 - Daniel Bruno <dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org> - 0.13.1-10
2013-07-01 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.13.0-9
2013-05-16 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.12.4-8
2013-03-26 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.12.3-6
2013-02-19 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.12.1-5
2012-10-10 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.11.3-4
2012-08-02 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.11.1-3
2012-06-15 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.9.1-2
2012-04-16 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.9.1-1
2012-03-26 - Daniel Bruno dbruno(a)fedoraproject.org - 0.8.0-4
Well, It should be something like 0.9.1-1, 0.10.1-1, 0.12.3-1, release
number should not get bumped when packaging a newer version.
If you think I'm right I will go to bugzilla and file a bug.
Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Always playing in Fedora Project
http://cicku.me
10 years, 7 months
Disabling auto update functionality
by Richard Fearn
Hi,
Are there any specific packaging guidelines related to software that
has auto update functionality built in?
I am mainly interested in whether it's allowable to just disable this
at runtime (if the software allows it), or if it needs to be removed
at compile time.
Regards,
Rich
--
Richard Fearn
richardfearn(a)gmail.com
10 years, 7 months
InitialCC for new packages?
by Christopher Meng
Hi,
In these days this problem are hitting more and more people, I can see
many SIGs on the page, but is it compulsory/mandatory for all
packagers to add CC to some SIGs? I can't see any reference in the PG,
only in Package SCM admin requests page. Also is this list
up-to-dated? Like if new SIGs are founded, should we revise the PG
also? e.g. design-software.
Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Always playing in Fedora Project
http://cicku.me
10 years, 7 months
Fedora Packaging guidelines for LibreOffice's extensions
by Antonio Trande
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all.
Are there Fedora Packaging guidelines specific for LibreOffice's
extensions ?
I've only seen those for OpenOffice
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OpenOffice.orgExtensions).
- --
- ----
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter(a)fedoraproject.org
http://www.fedoraos.worpress.com
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: D400D6C4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSMetHAAoJED2vIvfUANbE48gP/iw5s+HUjSNwf+osnqGEsGcI
tj2GG7I3Nhse/ZvRq1qNFjrpXA1bKJSvHFoo4pZ+ZGVh/O3g+a1VJtxC0ru7z+XB
PUq6DTBdpdRdsm2cIc82UohqwQH4AfBChpbDuNHtC9ctg2x17NOHAVqV6e97ZgbE
Pfq26uBxy4DUoJR3gfsdT2jYdsNhsUJg6RkfqBanoVY7oi+Fjd9nGynomqoAotP4
3BWs4fl+SXO/rp7CFG4ubKBRMTkYV4X05qL80qFXTZQrsREk7V08OQOvHM4c50LS
7K4NZM1z0mcb85jcsmPnQNAf0IWWOEoWf5AHlulMVp7rwODwAA6G3ugLWn8Z8aWA
4iiatztioFgdGiGKYHEQ0/SbEzE9xFigSSw6VszBCATON8B/LA3e5BebIH4w1wkD
vEGKTcNIALqwFXkxrsBVoqWPA3SxlTPGPW1xVeAz63uDTOtWvLvUCmVjIPNrdqTq
uL++g0tiWT7PcH64xgi5JlTljL97lT6lf2SLysncfLrcRNgL2/JUZKwwiqp5hJN2
0hl8R4lGGQqBUnqRKUxNxY8GYRlcjwYGE7kVF+zyImQKO5+kvtcv5N89T0okJOQP
4HyjnN2/WINAwIDBZfOw0tOfZojdwVT7dcV6G8iFKae8BDtcARfemNpEvt5r99Wv
rYbNmJwUJ0PcJzyzXn8O
=FaHs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10 years, 7 months
Should .so files under python site dir be 755 perms?
by Christopher Meng
Hi,
I have a python-pygit2 review, in this review the reviewer asked me to
change the perms of the .so files from 755 to 644. In fact I've done
this for many other packages, but I want to ask if this is really
needed?
I've asked pygit2 upstream at: https://github.com/libgit2/pygit2/issues/259
They said that pillow has 755 perms so files, too. So I ran:
[rpmaker@fab PIL]$ ls -al|grep .so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 15768 8月 29 19:30 _imagingcms.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 15976 8月 29 19:30 _imagingft.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 18732 8月 29 19:30 _imagingmath.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 290820 8月 29 19:30 _imaging.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 10524 8月 29 19:30 _imagingtk.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 10548 8月 29 19:30 _webp.so
Well seems they are 755, too.
What should I do now?
Thanks in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Always playing in Fedora Project
http://cicku.me
10 years, 7 months
Wiki How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25check_section
by Michael Schwendt
In reply to:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/982351
> > Referring to rpmlint, your package is OK. But shouldn't be the %check
> > section after %install? Maybe it is important to run the tests after
> > installation. All Python packages I've reviewed do so.
>
> It is actually documented[1] that %check follows %build, also tests run in the
> builddir directory, code installed in buildrootdir is not used.
> I guess other packages follow rpmbuild execution order which runs %check after
> %install no matter what order is it in spec.
> There are also other Fedora py rpms which have %build %check %install order
> e.g.
>
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25check_section
That HowTo says:
| [...] the %check section (which immediately follows the %build section)
Why is that?
IMO, %check should be placed after the %install section, because rpmbuild
executes it after %install. And because in some cases one performs tests
on the files in %buildroot rather than uninstalled files in the builddir.
Is there any good reason why to put it after %build?
10 years, 7 months
Different source / binary package names
by Orion Poplawski
I'm starting to package more of the X2Go stuff and running into some
Debianisms. Namely different source and binary package names. For example:
The source package "x2goplasmabingings" with source tarball
x2goplasmabindings-3.0.1.5.tar.gz produces a binary package called
"plasma-widget-x2go" (which matches the way other plasma widgets are named).
So, is a package like:
Name: x2goplasmabindings
Summary: Plasma widget for control X2go sessions
%description
%description -n plasma-widget-x2go
X2go is a server-based computing environment with
- session resuming
- low bandwidth support
- LDAP support
- client side mass storage mounting support
- audio support
- authentication by smartcard and USB stick
This package adds a plasma widget (KDE4) for controlling your X2go session.
%package -n plasma-widget-x2go
Summary: %{summary}
%description -n plasma-widget-x2go
X2go is a server-based computing environment with
- session resuming
- low bandwidth support
- LDAP support
- client side mass storage mounting support
- audio support
- authentication by smartcard and USB stick
This package adds a plasma widget (KDE4) for controlling your X2go session.
%files -n plasma-widget-x2go -f plasma_applet_x2goplasmoid.lang
...
Okay? Is there a way to avoid repeating the description?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
10 years, 7 months