Fixing wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines
by Jun Aruga
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
4 years, 7 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-05-31 16:00 - 17:05 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:51 UTC. The full logs are
available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-05-31/fpc.2018-
05-31-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:51)
* LINK: https://emojipedia.org/thumbs-up-sign/ (decathorpe,
16:05:25)
* Schedule (geppetto, 16:05:56)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor
aproject.org/message/M7VIS55Q4YDQFEJTOLQB34EWDL7OAEVG/
(geppetto, 16:06:06)
* #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review
(geppetto, 16:06:21)
* ACTION: Deprecation guideline with no %name but optional date.
(+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:20:28)
* #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config
(geppetto, 16:20:44)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RPMMacros
(geppetto, 16:21:13)
* ACTION: mbooth should be free to look at draft in next week or two.
(geppetto, 16:28:22)
* #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects (geppetto,
16:29:43)
* LINK:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/2
4
(decathorpe, 16:32:05)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots
(tibbs, 16:40:05)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 17:03:29)
* limburgher also voted +1 on ticket #743 (geppetto, 17:04:37)
Meeting ended at 17:05:18 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* Deprecation guideline with no %name but optional date. (+1:5, 0:0,
-1:0)
* mbooth should be free to look at draft in next week or two.
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* mbooth
* mbooth should be free to look at draft in next week or two.
* **UNASSIGNED**
* Deprecation guideline with no %name but optional date. (+1:5, 0:0,
-1:0)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* geppetto (69)
* tibbs (41)
* decathorpe (25)
* zodbot (14)
* mbooth (5)
* limburgher (5)
* redi (2)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
5 years
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-05-24 16:00 - 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:20 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-05-24/fpc.2018-05...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:20)
* Schedule (geppetto, 16:05:01)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5ICHLHX6BAVTJV4RLSPAWL5VV5NW7DTD/
(geppetto, 16:05:03)
* #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects (geppetto, 16:05:54)
* #657 Keeping packager tooling in sync with our guidelines (geppetto,
16:12:48)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523826 is perhaps
a useful example. (tibbs, 16:22:16)
* Committe doesn't mind doing work ourself, if we have time … which we
often don't. (geppetto, 16:26:58)
* ACTION: tibbs In his copious free time will survey how out of sync.
the tooling is. (geppetto, 16:28:06)
* #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review
(geppetto, 16:28:09)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Churchyard/Packaging:Deprecating_Packages
(geppetto, 16:28:37)
* Got +4 for no %name (geppetto, 16:57:24)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 16:57:40)
Meeting ended at 17:01:39 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* tibbs In his copious free time will survey how out of sync. the
tooling is.
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* tibbs
* tibbs In his copious free time will survey how out of sync. the
tooling is.
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* tibbs (62)
* geppetto (59)
* redi (18)
* ignatenkobrain (15)
* zodbot (14)
* mbooth (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
5 years
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-05-17 16:00 - 17:05 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#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-1/2018-05-17/fpc.2018-
05-17-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:23)
* Schedule (geppetto, 16:06:19)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor
aproject.org/message/BR5BMNRH7PR2MV7PFCLJU7OO6FKKD2OT/
(geppetto, 16:06:20)
* #767 Clarity for packaging addons for non-fedora applications
(geppetto, 16:06:30)
* ACTION: Add tibbs proposed exception for chrome plugins that are
compat. with chromium. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:22:26)
* #754 Should py3-foo obsolete py2-foo (when py2-foo is removed)?
(geppetto, 16:24:03)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578514
(mhroncok, 16:29:05)
* mhroncok to help tibbs co-maintain fedora-obsolete-packages
(geppetto, 16:57:48)
* We acknowledge that there are likely to be a lot of py2 packages
added to fedora-obsolete-packages in the near future (geppetto,
16:58:48)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 17:01:36)
Meeting ended at 17:06:14 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* Add tibbs proposed exception for chrome plugins that are compat. with
chromium. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0)
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* tibbs
* Add tibbs proposed exception for chrome plugins that are compat.
with chromium. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0)
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* geppetto (84)
* tibbs (71)
* mhroncok (65)
* limburgher (32)
* decathorpe (23)
* zodbot (14)
* redi (9)
* sgallagh (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
5 years
example for %post -p
by Miroslav Suchý
For documentation purpose I am trying to come with some example for -p flag. Like:
%post -p ldconfig
But I do not want to use ldconfig as this one, we are now removing. So I do not use it as example as people will likely
use it.
However, I cannot come with some other example, which has sense. Do you have some meaningful example of "-p" flag?
Miroslav
5 years
Conventions for compiling SRPMs for 32bit targets
by Boris Zikeyev
Hi all,
I'm hoping this is the correct mailing list for my question.
I wanted to know if there is a common\conventional way of compiling SRPMs
(and generating the corresponding binary RPMs) on a x86_64 env for a i686
target.
In particular, I'm interested in compiling glibc for i686. This has to be
possible, since an i686 version of the package is indeed available from the
repository. However, simply attempting to compile the SRPM by running:
rpmbuild -ba <my path>/rpmbuild/SPECS/glibc.spec --target=i686
(after obtaining all of the dependencies) seems to fail due to incorrect
env vars and\or configure flags.
5 years