Fedora Update Policy
by Brad Bell
I have a package that runs all it's automated tests during the `%check phase` of the build process.
I am not sure what I should specify, for this case, during the `fedpkg updae` command ?
It seems that my updates have gotten stuck, with the options I have tried.
For example, see `20210000.3-3.fc33` on
http://rpms.remirepo.net/rpmphp/zoom.php?rpm=cppad
How can I move this version to `base` for fedora-33 ?
1 month, 1 week
Adding a metainfo file to a package
by Matti Pulkkinen
Hello!
I recently reported a bug [1] against RStudio because it wasn't showing
up in Gnome Software. The problem seems to have been that the package
did not ship a metainfo file. I tried making a metainfo file for this
package and attached it to the bug report, and it has since been added
to the package. However, RStudio still does not show up in Gnome
Software. Does something else still need to be done, or is the file I
created just bad?
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928992
--
Terveisin / Regards,
Matti Pulkkinen
1 month, 2 weeks
golang macros in epel
by Mattia Verga
Hello folks,
I'm trying to fix reg package FTB and I've successfully managed to port the specfile to use golang macros in Rawhide [1].
However, since the package is needed in Fedora infrastructure to run registry server, I would like to make it build in EPEL also. As I can see from scratch builds, golang macros don't exist in epel7 ('%gometa' is not recognized there), while in epel8 they seems to exist, but I get a failure in %prep section [2]:
+ %goprep -ke
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Zw57Mq: line 46: fg: no job control
Can anyone give me some advice how to handle that?
Thanks.
Mattia
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62621577
[2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62621583
1 month, 2 weeks
Python extras: underscore supported?
by Frank R Dana Jr.
I recently committed[1] an updated package spec for python-webscrapbook[2].
Its setup.py file contains the following lines:
extras_require={
"adhoc_ssl": ["cryptography"],
},
I therefore wanted to include 'adhoc_ssl' as a Python Extras subpackage, as
documented[3] in the Packaging Guidelines.
However, if I remove the '%if 0' wrapper around line 36 in my spec file:
%{?python_extras_subpkg:%python_extras_subpkg -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name} -i %{python3_sitelib}/*.egg-info adhoc_ssl }
a `fedpkg --release f33 local` build fails with the following errors:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Processing files: python3-webscrapbook+adhoc-0.33.3-1.fc33.noarch
Error: The package name contains an extras name `adhoc` that was not found in the metadata.
Check if the extras were removed from the project. If so, consider removing the subpackage and obsoleting it from another.
error: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': *** PYTHON_EXTRAS_NOT_FOUND_ERROR___SEE_STDERR ***
Error: The package name contains an extras name `adhoc` that was not found in the metadata.
Check if the extras were removed from the project. If so, consider removing the subpackage and obsoleting it from another.
error: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': *** PYTHON_EXTRAS_NOT_FOUND_ERROR___SEE_STDERR ***
Provides: python-webscrapbook+adhoc = 0.33.3-1.fc33 python3-webscrapbook+adhoc = 0.33.3-1.fc33 python3.9-webscrapbook+adhoc = 0.33.3-1.fc33
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...As you can see, it's trying to package a nonexistent extra named
'python3-webscrapbook+adhoc', rather than the expected
'python3-webscrapbook_adhoc_ssl'.
Running `pip3 install --user 'webscrapbook[adhoc_ssl]`, executes fine (and checks
that the cryptography package was installed, as required by the adhoc_ssl extra),
so 'adhoc_ssl' does appear to be a valid Python package extra name.
I tried wrapping the extra name in double quotes, I tried backslash-escaping the
underscore... nothing seems to work.
* Am I doing something wrong?
* Do the RPM macros for extras not support names with underscores?
* Is there any way to convince them to take an extra name containing an underscore?
[1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-webscrapbook/c/26f5e10fe03aa5b6...
[2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-webscrapbook
[3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_python...
1 month, 2 weeks
Updating one-off contributions documentation
by Otto Urpelainen
Hi,
I would like to update the instructions for [One-off contributions][1]
to packages. First, they are outdated, there is no need for external Git
hosting since the anonymous checkout from src.fp.o method can now be
used. Second, anyone needing that info is probably new to Fedora
packaging and would appreciate something else than two terse paragraphs
added to the bottom of very detailed article that they cannot actually
utilize due to missing permissions.
Currently, the documnetation is in the wiki. Am I correct that this kind
of content should go to docs.fp.o? If so, I can make a pull request to
move it. Either the whole _Joint he package collection maintainers_
page, or just the one-off contributions section. Does anybody here know
what would be the correct course of action?
Docs would be a better location for the one-off contributions section in
particular. If anyone needs that information, they likely do not have
the required groups in the Fedora Accounts to update the wiki. In case
they discover anything is wrong or missing. With docs, that is not a
problem, since the pull request method works there.
Regards,
Otto
[1]:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#On...
1 month, 3 weeks
mockbuild: Import of key(s) didn't help, wrong key(s)?
by Brad Bell
I am having trouble with mockbuild on rawhide and do not know how to proceed ?
First I tried
fedpkg mockbuild
and got the response
Could not execute mockbuild: Could not find the release/dist from branch name rawhide
Please specify with --release
Then I tried
fedpkg --release rawhide
and got the same response.
Then I checked
git show-ref rawhide
git show-ref f34
and determined that they were the same.
Then I tried
fedpkg --release f34 mockbuild
and got the response
... snip ...
warning:
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/var/cache/dnf/fedora-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/alternatives-1.15-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm:
Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9867c58f: NOKEY
fedora 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00
Importing GPG key 0x45719A39:
Userid : "Fedora (34) <fedora-34-primary(a)fedoraproject.org>"
Fingerprint: 8C5B A699 0BDB 26E1 9F2A 1A80 1161 AE69 4571 9A39
From : /usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-34-primary
Key imported successfully
fedora 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00
GPG key at file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-34-primary (0x45719A39)
is already installed
fedora 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00
Importing GPG key 0x9570FF31:
Userid : "Fedora (33) <fedora-33-primary(a)fedoraproject.org>"
Fingerprint: 963A 2BEB 0200 9608 FE67 EA42 49FD 7749 9570 FF31
From : /usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-33-primary
Key imported successfully
Import of key(s) didn't help, wrong key(s)?
Public key for alternatives-1.15-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm is not installed. Failing package is:
alternatives-1.15-2.fc34.x86_64
GPG Keys are configured as:
file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-34-primary,
file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-34-primary,
file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-33-primary
Public key for audit-libs-3.0.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm is not installed. Failing package is:
audit-libs-3.0.1-1.fc35.x86_64
... snip ...
1 month, 3 weeks