Help reqest: dependencies for packaging writefreely (Golang)
by Edd Salkield
Hi all,
I'm currently working on packaging github.com/writeas/writefreely, a platform for building writing spaces. Some of its dependencies are currently not packaged for Fedora, so I'm seeking some advice on the granularity to which I should be packaging each dependency.
github.com/writeas/writefreely depends on github.com/writeas/web-core. This is a library that is used by the project developers (write.as) for all their shared code. It is likely that this will be used as a dependency for future packages (for example, when their photo sharing service, snap.as, gets released), but unlikely that it will ever be used by anyone other than these developers.
Therefore, should github.com/writeas/web-core be its own package, should I bundle it in with writefreely, should it be a subpackage of writefreely, or indeed something else?
Additionally, web-core has its own dependencies of the same kind. Where possible, I have submitted PRs[1,2,3] to their repo to reduce unnecessary dependencies, but web-core still depends upon github.com/writeas/impart and github.com/writeas/openssl-go. These libraries are both unlikely to be used anywhere else; should these be bundled too?
If the correct course of action is to bundle the dependencies (in a nested way), I would really appreciate somebody experienced at packaging Go packages to give some guidance on how to do this sensibly with the Go SPEC file macro system. This is especially since the current documentation[4] seems pretty light on the topic of dealing with SPEC files with multiple sources.
Also, this is my first time joining a mailing list to actually get involved with the Fedora project, so do let me know if this sort of question actually belongs elsewhere.
Kind regards,
Edd Salkield
[1] https://github.com/writeas/web-core/pull/6
[2] https://github.com/writeas/web-core/pull/8
[3] https://github.com/writeas/web-core/pull/10
[4] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/
3 months, 3 weeks
Packaging fish config files
by Orion Poplawski
Background - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878306
conda can provide an /etc/fish/conf.d/conda.fish file for fish users.
As usual, we do not want to add a dependency on fish for conda. For now
I think I'll just have conda own /etc/fish and /etc/fish/conf.d, but
what do we want to do going forward? Add it to filesystem? Create a
fish-filesystem package?
Surprisingly, I can't find any other packages that ship
/etc/fish/conf.d/* files, so maybe this just isn't an issue worth taking
on yet.
Thanks,
Orion
--
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
4 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2020-09-03 16:00 - 16:45 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:39 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-09-03/fpc.2020-09...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:39)
* Schedule (geppetto, 16:05:56)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproje...
(geppetto, 16:05:59)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproje...
(geppetto, 16:08:02)
* #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. (geppetto,
16:08:14)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814
(geppetto, 16:08:14)
* LINK:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814#request_diff
I guess (tibbs, 16:13:11)
* ACTION: mhroncok to speak to authors again, having a working example
might help a lot. (geppetto, 16:34:35)
* #1007 Golang pkg review exception to update a lot of packages
(geppetto, 16:34:56)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1007 (geppetto,
16:34:56)
* ACTION: Golang pkg review exception to update a lot of packages
(+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:40:19)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 16:41:22)
Meeting ended at 16:45:43 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* mhroncok to speak to authors again, having a working example might
help a lot.
* Golang pkg review exception to update a lot of packages (+1:6, 0:0,
-1:0)
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* mhroncok
* mhroncok to speak to authors again, having a working example might
help a lot.
* **UNASSIGNED**
* Golang pkg review exception to update a lot of packages (+1:6, 0:0,
-1:0)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* geppetto (49)
* zodbot (15)
* mhroncok (14)
* King_InuYasha (11)
* tibbs (7)
* carlwgeorge (2)
* decathorpe (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
4 months, 2 weeks
Files in /usr/share/mime don't have owners
by Miro Hrončok
Hello,
an interesting problem has been reported in Bugzilla 3 years ago:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486468
tl;dr There are generated files in /usr/share/mime without owning packages.
When update-mime-database database is run (by RPM trigger), files are generated
in /usr/share/mime, such as:
/usr/share/mime
├── XMLnamespaces
├── aliases
├── application
│ ├── andrew-inset.xml
│ ├── annodex.xml
│ ├── ...
│ └── zstd.xml
├── ...
├── x-content
│ ├── audio-cdda.xml
│ ├── ....
│ └── win32-software.xml
└── x-epoc
└── x-sisx-app.xml
The files are generated based on content form multiple packages. I.e.
shared-mime-info cannot list all the files as %ghosts because the list of files
is volatile.
As a specific example, on my system, I have:
/usr/share/mime/application/x-openscad.xml
/usr/share/mime/packages/openscad.xml
The file in packages/ is shipped and owned by the openscad package.
The file in application/ is generated by update-mime-database.
So I guess the questions are:
Should shared-mime-info %ghost all files created by update-mime-database when
only shared-mime-info is installed? (That seems to be easy enough).
Should individual packages shipping mime files %ghost the files generated from
them? E.g. should openscad %ghost /usr/share/mime/application/x-openscad.xml?
Is there a better (possibly automated) way of doing it? Or is it not worth it
and we simply say that the files are OK not being owned?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
4 months, 2 weeks