packaging March 2018

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
12 discussions

Fixing wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines
by Jun Aruga 23 Oct '18

23 Oct '18

Dear Packagers who are using Boostrapping logic for the cyclical dependency Need your help to fix wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines. This mail is long. Sorry for that in advance. You may be building the cyclical dependency packages by using a variable such as _with_bootstrap, need_bootstrap, bootstrap, enable_test, and etc.. For example, you may build with below ways for that, if you will use mock command. ``` $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --with=bootstrap *.src.rpm => _with_bootstrap can be used as --with=bootstrap $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define '_with_bootstrap 1' *.src.rpm $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define 'need_bootstrap 1' *.src.rpm $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define 'enable_test 1' *.src.rpm ... ``` Here is a document page to unify the Bootstrap logic. You may know it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bootstrapping However I found that below part in the page is wrong. ``` %{!?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1} ``` Because .. If _with_bootstrap is not set from outside, bootstrap is 1 => bootstrap is True/Enabled if _with_bootstrap is set as 1 from outside, bootstrap's value is not set. => the value is empty if it is not declared in advance. It's a kind of 0. bootstrap is False/Disabled. This situation is opposite meaning of "_with_bootstrap". Below way not using negative operator `!?` is correct. ``` %{?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1} ``` The reason why I wrote this here is I found that had already been reported 2 years ago for packaging committee, however it was closed without fixing. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/509 I am not sure that why it is not admitted. You may feel that it does not matter because you may edit the Bootstrapping logic in the RPM spec file manually. But in my case, I am one of the people who use the Bootsrapping logic actively. There are 89 RPM packages that constitutes Ruby on Rails 5.0. To build Ruby on Rails 5.0 completely from scratch, I have to build the packages total 103 times considering bootstrap. I am trying to build those packages automatically by a tool [1] with a configuration file [2] for Ruby on Rails. It is important to fix it due to that. Fortunately today another guy Vit created new ticket for that. So, if YOU like this proposal, please comment in below page of the ticket or reply here. It is helpful for us to move this huge rock. I really want to fix it. "I like it." comment please. => https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/684 Thank you for your help. [1] https://github.com/sclorg/rpm-list-builder [2] https://github.com/sclorg/rhscl-rebuild-recipes/blob/master/ror.yml Kind regards, Jun Aruga

10 27

Re: Open Seats on the Fedora Packaging Committee
by James Antill 16 Apr '18

16 Apr '18

On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 02:11 -0500, James Antill wrote: > The Fedora Packaging Committee has some open seats and is accepting > submissions from interested candidates to serve on the FPC. > > The FPC would like to thank Ralf Corsepius, Dominik 'Rathann' > Mierzejewski, and Thomas Spura for their service. [...] > Candidates who are interested should provide the > following details to the FPC for consideration, by emailing it > directly > to me (james(a)fedoraproject.org) > > The FPC will consider all candidates, but strongly prefers > candidates who have extensive experience packaging in Fedora. We will > accept applications for the next two weeks (deadline Wednesday, 2018- > 03-14). We currently have submissions from: churchyard - Miro Hrončok decathorpe - Fabio Valentini hobbes1069 - Richard Shaw ignatenkobrain - Igor Gnatenko jwakely - Jonathan Wakely ...so if you think you sent me an email and your name is not on that list, please send it again! Also, if you are interested you still have 3 days to send me an email.

2 2

/run vs. tmpfiles.d issues
by Paul W. Frields 26 Mar '18

26 Mar '18

The introduction of non-persistent /run has apparently created an issue where some RPM packages raise verification issues depending on the umask present when a process from that package starts. The issue is further explained in a tracking bug here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553916 While arguably not a showstopper for Fedora, it's certainly an annoyance to have RPMs not verify post-installation when a packaged service is started. This situation's also potentially harmful downstream to RHEL. It means that customers who have to go through audit processes for STIG[1] compliance will get dinged (even if explainable) for this packaging issue. Note that in the tracking bug above, there's a reference to a specific example which was fixed appropriately for resource-agents: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462802 Would packaging folks agree that it's worth fixing files not using tmpfiles.d (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d) to do so? * * * [1] https://iase.disa.mil/stigs/Pages/index.aspx -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com

4 3

Ownership of /usr/lib/.build-id
by Miroslav Suchý 26 Mar '18

26 Mar '18

Hi, today I run fedora-review and I got this warning: [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(kde- platform-plugin, libreport-plugin-kerneloops, libhbalinux, cups- client, efivar-libs, netcdf, rsyslog, libde265, librsync, ..... [LOOONG list of packages] As ownership of /usr/lib/.build-id is done automatically by some macro and I cannot do anything about it as packager, I wonder if this is correct? It clearly violate Packaging Guidelines. Should we move the ownership to package 'filesystem'? Miroslav

2 1

Schedule for Wednesday's FPC Meeting (2018-03-21 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Wednesday at 2018-03-21 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-2 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Wednesday ================= 2018-03-21 10:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-03-21 13:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-03-21 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2018-03-21 17:00 UTC UTC 2018-03-21 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2018-03-21 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2018-03-21 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta --------------- New Day: Thursday ---------------- 2018-03-22 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-03-22 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-03-22 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-03-22 03:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followups = #topic #691 noarch *sub*packages with arch-specific dependencies .fpc 691 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/691 #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #694 Packaging guidelines for application independence .fpc 694 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/694 #topic #702 C/C++ guidelines should say using clang needs an exception .fpc 702 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/702 #topic #708 Allocating a static uid and gid for openvswitch .fpc 708 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/708 #topic #710 Ruby packaging guidelines update .fpc 710 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/710 #topic #713 Forward-looking conditionals by default .fpc 713 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/713 #topic #714 let's kill file deps! .fpc 714 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714 #topic #715 Separately building package documentation .fpc 715 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/715 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review .fpc 723 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/723 #topic #726 Review for SELinux Independent Policy packaging Draft .fpc 726 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/726 #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag documentation in redhat-rpm-config .fpc 743 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee, 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.

2 1

problem with mounted directory: cpio: chown failed - Permission denied
by Rainer Traut 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Hi list, hope I found the right list to ask this question. I am trying to package software which owns a mounted directory. This mount point is read-only so the chown fails with: error: unpacking of archive failed on file /srv/my/dir: cpio: chown failed - Permission denied Some googling gave me the hint of: # echo "%_netsharedpath /srv/my/dir" >> /etc/rpm/macros But is there a better way than echoing this on every single host? Like some magic in the SPEC file? Thx Rainer

2 1

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-03-15 16:00 - 17:35 UTC)
by James Antill 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:22 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-03-15/fpc.2018- 03-15-16.00.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:23) * Schedule (geppetto, 16:08:48) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor aproject.org/message/S6JJRBPNBWM5QJXEXWITCDBOBPOE5GJB/ (geppetto, 16:08:50) * #738 Mangling shebangs (geppetto, 16:09:02) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/738#comment-49036 6 actually. (limburgher, 16:12:21) * ACTION: Mangling shebangs (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:16:41) * #750 Add note about `__brp_mangle_shebangs_exclude(_from)? (geppetto, 16:16:52) * Was dealt with as part of 738, closed. (geppetto, 16:17:48) * #751 Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_Unported... is outdated (geppetto, 16:18:26) * ACTION: 751 Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_Unported_Dependencies is outdated (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:21:33) * Open floor (geppetto, 16:21:57) * #694 Packaging guidelines for application independence (geppetto, 16:23:16) * ACTION: mcatanzaro to work on merging draft with Packaging:Guidelines#Libraries_and_Applications (geppetto, 17:33:20) * Open floor (geppetto, 17:33:39) Meeting ended at 17:34:35 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Mangling shebangs (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * 751 Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_Unported_Dependencies is outdated (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * mcatanzaro to work on merging draft with Packaging:Guidelines#Libraries_and_Applications Action Items, by person ----------------------- * mcatanzaro * mcatanzaro to work on merging draft with Packaging:Guidelines#Libraries_and_Applications * **UNASSIGNED** * Mangling shebangs (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * 751 Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_Unported_Dependencies is outdated (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * tibbs (79) * geppetto (76) * limburgher (40) * mcatanzaro (36) * zodbot (16) * sgallagh (10) * Rathann (7) * mbooth (5) * kalev (5) * hughsie (4) * orionp (3) * mclasen (2) * racor (1) * x3mboy (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-03-15 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-03-15 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2018-03-15 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2018-03-15 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2018-03-15 16:00 GMT Europe/London 2018-03-15 16:00 UTC UTC 2018-03-15 17:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2018-03-15 17:00 CET Europe/Paris 2018-03-15 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2018-03-16 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2018-03-16 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2018-03-16 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2018-03-16 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followups = #topic #691 noarch *sub*packages with arch-specific dependencies .fpc 691 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/691 #topic #693 Wiki:Packaging:RPMMacros .fpc 693 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/693 #topic #694 Packaging guidelines for application independence .fpc 694 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/694 #topic #702 C/C++ guidelines should say using clang needs an exception .fpc 702 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/702 #topic #708 Allocating a static uid and gid for openvswitch .fpc 708 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/708 #topic #710 Ruby packaging guidelines update .fpc 710 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/710 #topic #713 Forward-looking conditionals by default .fpc 713 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/713 #topic #714 let's kill file deps! .fpc 714 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714 #topic #715 Separately building package documentation .fpc 715 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/715 #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects .fpc 719 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 #topic #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review .fpc 723 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/723 #topic #726 Review for SELinux Independent Policy packaging Draft .fpc 726 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/726 #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag documentation in redhat-rpm-config .fpc 743 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743 #topic #751 Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_Unported... is outdated .fpc 751 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/751 = New business = #topic #738 Mangling shebangs .fpc 738 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/738 #topic #750 Add note about `__brp_mangle_shebangs_exclude(_from)? .fpc 750 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/750 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee , 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

Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging
by nicolas.mailhot＠laposte.net 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

Hi, I am proposing for inclusion a set of rpm technical files aimed at automating the packaging of forge-hosted projects. - Packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/734 - go-srpm-macros RFE with the technical files: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526721 This proposal is integrated with and depends on the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation draft It builds on the hard work of the Go SIG and reuses the rpm automation of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go when it exists, and produces compatible packages. What it does: - drastically shorter spec files, up to 90% in some cases, often removing hundreds of lines per spec. - simple, packager-friendly spec syntax - automated package naming derived from the native identifier (import path). No more packages names without any relation with current upstream naming. - working Go autoprovides. No forgotten provides anymore. - working Go autorequires. No forgotten requires anymore. - strict automated directory ownership (used by autorequires and autoprovides). - centralized computation of source URLs (via Forge-hosted projects packaging automation). No more packages lacking guidelines. No more broken guidelines no one notices. - easy switch between commits, tags and releases (via Forge-hosted projects packaging automation). No more packages stuck on commits when upstream starts releasing. - guidelines-compliant automated snapshot naming, including snapshot timestamps (via Forge-hosted projects packaging automation). No more packages stuck in 2014. - guidelines-compliant bootstraping. - systematic use of the Go switches defined by the Go maintainer. Easy to do changes followed by a mass rebuild. - flexibility, do the right thing transparently by default, leave room for special cases and overrides. - no bundling (a.k.a. vendoring) due to the pain of packaging one more Go dependency. - centralized Go macros that can be audited and enhanced over time. - aggressive leverage of upstream unit tests to detect quickly broken code. Please consult packaging draft for full information. The proposal has been tested in Rawhide and EL7 over a set of ~ 140 Go packages. This set is a mix of current Fedora packages, bumped to a more recent version, rewrites of Fedora packages, and completely new packages. I hope posting the second part of the automation will answer some questions people had on the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation draft Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

8 34

Draft: Macros to tell what Python versions to package for
by Miro Hrončok 02 Mar '18

02 Mar '18

Hello Pythonistas, I've prepared a draft for Python packaging that introduces some new macros that should ease packaging for Fedoras, EPELs and even potential new RHELs, when it comes to python stacks. I don't do much ifs in specfiles and prefer to leverage git branches for this, so I don't know what bothers you most. The proposal with example spec file is at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Churchyard/Packaging:PythonMustMayMacros All you have to do to test it, is add the following block to your spec (that won't be needed once this is actually implemented): %if 0%{?fedora} %global py3_must 1 %global py3_may 1 %global py2_may 1 %endif %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7 %global py3_may 1 %global py2_may 1 %endif %if 0%{?rhel} > 7 ... (use your best judgment here) %endif Could you please provide feedback? Ask questions? There is a note at the bottom of the draft about how you could possibly start dropping Python 2 subpackages from Fedora. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

3 6

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging March 2018