packaging April 2015

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

29 participants
22 discussions

github URLs?
by Dave Johansen 13 Jul '15

13 Jul '15

What's the right way to handle github URLs? Currently, I'm working on the spec file for breathe and the URL is https://github.com/michaeljones/breathe/archive/v4.0.0.tar.gz and the actual file that's downloaded is breathe-4.0.0.tar.gz. How do I make that play nice in the spec file and with rpmlint? Thanks, Dave

9 31

Broken Symlinks
by John Dodson 25 May '15

25 May '15

Hi list, I'm new to this list but have had a hard time convincing redhat people that broken symlinks are bad! (I'm not going to bother trying to convice you ;-) What I would like to do is get a "package" to take responsibility for the many broken symlinks out there. So that at least a broken symlink can be assigned to a specific package the owner of which thinks (sic) that the symlink is "required" from his/her perspective. (I won't say that the code should be more intelligent & create a symlink if it is really necessary & remove it when it's broken as that would expect too much) Please see, https://access.redhat.com/support/cases/#/case/01326479 for more detail. Generally many packages create symlinks, but don't "own them", I'd like to change that. eg. kernel packagages if the source is not installed. Try, find / -type l -exec file "{}" \; |grep broken Cheers johnd John Dodson | Bosch Research Engineering & Computing Facility Manager, | Network Manager Medical Sciences, Electrical/Electronics/Control | Telecommunications Engineer Physiology/School of Medical Sciences The University of Sydney Rm N252,Anderson Stuart Building (F13) Eastern Avenue, The University of Sydney|NSW|2006|Australia. T +61 2 9351 5246 | F +61 2 9351 2058 | M +61 4 1459 7557 E johnd(a)physiol.usyd.edu.au | W http://www.physiol.usyd.edu.au/johnd ABN:15 211 513 464 CRICOS Number: 00026A I'd rather be on OTI... http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/OTI https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/One+Tree+Island,+Queensland/@-23.56665…

6 7

Proposal: Remove BuildRequires: exceptions from the guidelines
by Jason L Tibbitts III 08 May '15

08 May '15

TL;DR: There's a proposal for nuking the list of BuildRequires exceptions from the packaging guidelines. Important note: this is just an idea. We're not currently changing the guidelines based on this. Nothing is set in stone. It may end up that nothing happens. Don't panic. A couple of times recently, people have floated proposals to the FPC about removing certain things from the buildroot. (Specifically, perl and gcc*.) And the bottom line for these is that while FPC tries to maintain a list of BuildRequires: exceptions, this is really up to releng and whatever rpm happens to pull in at any particular time. This means that whatever list FPC maintains, it's going to get outdated eventually, and giving packagers the idea that they don't have to actually specify all of their dependencies restricts what releng can do and, perhaps, what dependencies the RPM package can drop without breaking builds. So, the generally stated proposal: I would like to get FPC out of the business of specifying this list of exceptions, and instead just indicate that packagers should completely specify their dependencies. My specific proposal can be seen in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497; the draft is at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/BuildReqDraft2. You can use the history tab to see the differences between that and the current guidelines. Now, the real issue is in what packagers can depend upon. Obviously you have RPM and an environment necessary to build a package (which means you have to have a shell to execute the scripts that make up the RPM sections, and redhat-rpm-config, and whatever RPM happens to use to execute %patch, which I guess could be some internal library if the RPM devs wanted). But what else? That's the open question. The draft currently says: --- You may assume that you have everything necessary for RPM to function and process your spec file (so of course RPM is present, along with redhat-rpm-config and what is necessary for RPM to apply patches, unpack archives, and run the shell scripts which make up the spec file sections.) You should not assume any other packages are present, as RPM dependencies and anything brought into the buildroot by the build system may change over time. --- Honestly, I'm not completely satisfied with that but I can't come up with anything better. Polite discussion is welcomed and encouraged. - J<

7 16

Go Packaging Guidelines: What's next?
by Adam Miller 03 May '15

03 May '15

Hello all, I've noticed that the Go (golang) Packaging Guidelines Draft[0] document has been stagnant for a while now and I'm curious what the next steps should be? Does this need to go through FESCo? Also, since Go is statically compiled by default is this something we need to get an exception from FESCo similar to OCaml[1]? Another topic of note is bundled libraries. The upstream Go community seems pretty content with just bundling in their dependencies since it's all statically linked anyways (yes, you can dynamically link with gcc-go but I've yet to find a single project out in community space doing that). For some popular Go projects the dependency list is over 100 deps[2] and are managed with something similar to Godep[3], I'm not sure how realistic it is for packagers to be expected to maintain that many dependencies. This also begs the question that if we do require a packager to maintain them, what happens if another project requires a different version of that dep? (This is similar in nature to what I like to call "ruby bundler hell"). If there were to be some sort of approval for these bundled libraries, should there be a defined specification of which Go dependency managers are supported for sake of security response so that we can check for packages that need rebuilding when a vulnerability is found? What kind of changes would be necessary for build tooling there? (Maybe something in this area I'm not thinking of?) I wanted to at least get this conversation going because it appears there's already a number of Go packages in Fedora at this time without any approved standard and as the language continues to gain popularity I can only assume that number will increase. At the time of this writing, on my laptop running Rawhide: $ dnf search golang | wc -l 279 Thank you, -AdamM [0] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go [1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Programs_which_don.27t_… [2] - https://github.com/openshift/origin/blob/master/Godeps/Godeps.json [3] - https://github.com/tools/godep

4 6

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2015-04-30 16:00 UTC) Followups: 5
by James Antill 30 Apr '15

30 Apr '15

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2015-04-30 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2015-04-30 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2015-04-30 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2015-04-30 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2015-04-30 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2015-04-30 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2015-04-30 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2015-04-30 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2015-05-01 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2015-05-01 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2015-05-01 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2015-05-01 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = Followups = #topic #281 New Python Macros for Easier Packaging .fpc 281 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/281 #topic #480 Packaging guidelines for consistent PKCS#11 usage .fpc 480 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/480 #topic #508 New GID for openstack-neutron .fpc 508 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/508 #topic #513 Use python -Es in shbang .fpc 513 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/513 #topic #524 static UID for ceph .fpc 524 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524 = 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/13 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.

5 4

Shared libraries unversioned .so symlinks packaging
by dani 28 Apr '15

28 Apr '15

Hi, When building gcc 5.1 rpm (based on f22 spec) to a different prefix I get a list of .so unpackaged files: /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libasan.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libatomic.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libcilkrts.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libgcc_s.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libgfortran.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libgomp.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libitm.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/liblsan.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libmpx.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libmpxwrappers.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libobjc.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libquadmath.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libstdc++.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libtsan.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libubsan.so I know the usual solution is to place such symlinks in the <lib>-devel package, but for most of those libs there is no devel counterpart, so I'm wondering what are best practices in this case. I figure I can 1. Just ignore them (I have %global _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0) 2. Remove them in %install 3. Add them to their respective %files lib 4. Create an %files lib-devel for each one Which is preferred, if at all? As a potential follow-up: If 1 or 3, why bother creating them in the first place?

2 2

Re: [Fedora-packaging] /usr/share vs /usr/libexec
by Sérgio Basto 25 Apr '15

25 Apr '15

Hi, On Qua, 2015-04-22 at 08:17 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello, > >> I confess I've only seen /usr/libexec used for add-on utilities, but > >> now I'm curious. > >> > >> Does it make more sense for these sort of scripts to live in > >> /usr/libexec, or in /usr/share? > > > > /usr/libexec. From (info standards): > > > >> `libexecdir' > >> The directory for installing executable programs to be run by other > >> programs rather than by users. > > > > The thing that threw me is that I poked around in /usr/share and found this: > > $ cat /bin/createrepo > #!/bin/sh > exec /usr/share/createrepo/genpkgmetadata.py "$@" > > Given what you're saying, would this be considered a bug in createrepo? > > There are a lot of Python files in /usr/share, but createrepo was one > that's the most obvious to me (simply shelling out to a file in > /usr/share). Similarly, there are a lot of executable files: (find > /usr/share/ -executable -type f) Are these all bugs? I'm adding packaging Mailing List, seems to me that we can get more help here. I have a lot of questions on this topic, not just /usr/share vs /usr/libexec also vs /usr/lib . >From what I understand, this is a problem that was created from Debian translations. Debian don't have /usr/lib64/ and put all in /usr/lib, so when we are packaging things that came "debianized". We got problems when have things in /usr/lib/package and aren't libs and or are noarch things. What we should do ? put it in /usr/libexec ? in /usr/share ? or have a /usr/lib even for x86_64 ? We got weird examples: /usr/lib/rpm, /usr/lib/systemd/ and /usr/lib/udev/ shouldn't be in /usr/share/rpm etc ? Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B.

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2015-04-23 16:00 - 17:30 UTC)
by James Antill 23 Apr '15

23 Apr '15

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:24 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-04-23/fpc.2015-04-23… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:24) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee?rd=Packaging:Committee (tibbs|w, 16:05:32) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:08:33) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-April/010604.html (geppetto, 16:08:37) * #525 Request for bundling exception: plotnetcfg, contains parson library (geppetto, 16:08:51) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/525 (geppetto, 16:08:56) * ACTION: Allow tmp. bundling exception for F22, but use at least static. lib for F23. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:26:27) * #524 static UID for ceph (geppetto, 16:26:41) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524 (geppetto, 16:26:48) * ACTION: We don't see the point, given that Debian won't be compatible and you have fixup scripts. If the fixup scripts take an annoying amount of time to run, then we might reconsider. (geppetto, 16:47:13) * #520 [Guidelines Draft] Per-Product Configuration Defaults v2 (geppetto, 16:47:44) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/520 (geppetto, 16:47:45) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sgallagh/Per-Product_Configuration_Pack… (geppetto, 17:06:03) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sgallagh/Per-Product_Confi… (racor, 17:06:14) * ACTION: Per-Product Configuration Packaging (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:24:19) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:24:29) Meeting ended at 17:30:42 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Allow tmp. bundling exception for F22, but use at least static. lib for F23. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * We don't see the point, given that Debian won't be compatible and you have fixup scripts. If the fixup scripts take an annoying amount of time to run, then we might reconsider. * Per-Product Configuration Packaging (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * Allow tmp. bundling exception for F22, but use at least static. lib for F23. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * We don't see the point, given that Debian won't be compatible and you have fixup scripts. If the fixup scripts take an annoying amount of time to run, then we might reconsider. * Per-Product Configuration Packaging (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (131) * tibbs|w (94) * sgallagh (75) * racor (25) * mbooth (14) * tomspur (14) * orionp (11) * zodbot (10) * lubko (8) * jbenc (7) * tibbs (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2015-04-23 16:00 UTC) Followups:6 New:1
by James Antill 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2015-04-23 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2015-04-23 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2015-04-23 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2015-04-23 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2015-04-23 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2015-04-23 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2015-04-23 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2015-04-23 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2015-04-24 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2015-04-24 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2015-04-24 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2015-04-24 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/13 = Followups = #topic #281 New Python Macros for Easier Packaging .fpc 281 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/281 #topic #303 Consider reverting decision to ban %{?_isa} in BuildRequires .fpc 303 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/303 #topic #508 New GID for openstack-neutron .fpc 508 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/508 #topic #513 Use python -Es in shbang .fpc 513 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/513 #topic #520 [Guidelines Draft] Per-Product Configuration Defaults v2 .fpc 520 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/520 #topic #524 static UID for ceph .fpc 524 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524 = New business = #topic #525 Request for bundling exception: plotnetcfg, contains parson library .fpc 525 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/525 = 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/13 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.

1 0

qt-examples, libqxt-devel - Need exceptions?
by Gerald B. Cox 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

I am working on packaging a program which includes a very small subset of files from these packages. >From qt-examples, there are four files. >From libqxt-devel, there are three files. All of the files have been modified for use by the application. I have done a search to see if these rpms are build requires for other packages: dnf repoquery --whatrequires qt-examples dnf repoquery --whatrequires libqxt-devel In both cases I receive zero hits. I'm thinking now that qt-examples doesn't really qualify as a "library". It is described as "Programming Examples for Qt" - which to me means the intent is to take what you need and modify. The intent was never that this be a "library". In the case of libqxt-devel: http://dev.libqxt.org/libqxt/wiki/Home The website says: "This package is no longer maintained. Qxt will likely not work with newer Qt versions due to usage of internal api. We recommend that you pick out the parts you want instead of using the entire libqxt." Which is exactly what the developer did. Considering the above, I'm thinking no exception is required for the inclusion of these 7 files. Comments? I don't want to waste peoples time by going through the exception process if it isn't needed. Thanks very much!

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging April 2015