Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
by Otto Urpelainen
Hello packagers,
I have problems interpreting Packaging Guidelines section File and
Directory Ownership [1] for icons application place in
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor. I ran into this during package review for
dosbox-x [2], but I think the issue is more general than that, because
many applications add their icons to the (default, fallback) hicolor theme.
So the package places application's icon to
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/dosbox-x.svg. From the
guidelines, it is clear that for all directories in the chain, one of
the following has to be true:
1. Package owns the directory
2. A dependency package owns the directory
3. _filesystem_, _man_ or "other explicitly created -filesystem
package" own the directory
Item 3 takes care of %{_datadir}/icons part, because that is included in
_filesystem_. The remainder hicolor/scalable/apps is unclear for me.
Method 1 could be used. But there is also package _hicolor-icon-theme_.
Is that package an "explicitly created -filesystem package", so method 3
could be used? That would feel natural, because hicolor is the fallback
theme that must exist according to freedesktop.org specification.
Related but separate question about the guidelines: Section Unowned
Directories:Inaccessible Directories [3] discusses a problem that is
only relevant to Fedora < 9 and RHEL < 5.3. It does not really contain
any information that is relevant today. Should that section simply be
removed?
Otto
[1]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_dire...
[2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639
[3]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirector...
2 weeks, 2 days
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2021-03-25 16:00 - 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 16:01:10 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2021-03-25/fpc.2021-03...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 16:01:10)
* Schedule (geppetto, 16:06:30)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproje...
(geppetto, 16:06:34)
* #1055 can't navigate to pkg instructions from fedoraproject.org
(geppetto, 16:07:33)
* We don't really know what we need to do here (geppetto, 16:17:18)
* #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories?
(geppetto, 16:17:33)
* #1055 can't navigate to pkg instructions from fedoraproject.org
(geppetto, 16:21:04)
* ACTION: tibbs to add link to Join document from packaging guidelines
(geppetto, 16:27:28)
* #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories?
(geppetto, 16:30:42)
* ACTION: tibbs to ask if anyone knows what gettext is supposed to do
(geppetto, 16:53:18)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 16:55:55)
Meeting ended at 17:00:41 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* tibbs to add link to Join document from packaging guidelines
* tibbs to ask if anyone knows what gettext is supposed to do
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* tibbs
* tibbs to add link to Join document from packaging guidelines
* tibbs to ask if anyone knows what gettext is supposed to do
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* geppetto (68)
* tibbs (42)
* Eighth_Doctor (18)
* zodbot (13)
* bcotton (6)
* cstratak (5)
* limburgher (4)
* carlwgeorge (2)
* austinpowered (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
2 weeks, 6 days
Re-review
by Alessio
Hello.
The redir package was orphaned some time ago. I often use this command and I would like to continue to see it in the Fedora repository.
Original (upstream) redir software is at version 2.2.1 for many years, and it seems that upstream is no more maintaining/developing it.
However there is a 3.x version maintained on github.
The new upstream developer states that:
"Redir was originally created by Sam [http://sammy.net/~sammy/hacks/]Creasey[http://sammy.net/~sammy/hacks/] and is now developed and maintained at GitHub[https://github.com/troglobit/redir] by Joachim Nilsson[http://troglobit.com]."
Indeed the command, its options and how it operates are the same.
However, since upstream source code location for version 3.x should change, and since the spec file should require some interventions, like removing patch files and some other stuff, does the package require a re-review?
Thanks,
A.
3 weeks
Is srpm allowed to violate a license if %prep restores compliance?
by Otto Urpelainen
Greetings,
I am doing my first Fedora package review [1], for litehtml library. The
source tree contains some bundled items that, in violation of original
licenses, do not include a copy of the relevant licenses. There are two
problem items:
1. gumbo-parser is included in source form and only contains link to the
correct license in source files and repository README, but license text
itself is not included like the license, Apache Software License 2.0,
demands.
2. tools/xxd.exe is included as a (Windows) binary used during the
build. It does not have any mention of licensing. Supposedly, it comes
from Vim [2] and uses the Vim License [3], which also demands including
copy of the license.
Neither of these are actually required for anything. Fedora already has
the gumbo-parser package that can be used, while the Windows binary is
obviously useless, but the vim-common package contains a usable xxd binary.
Since neither 1 or 2 is needed for anything, they can be removed in
%prep section of the specfile. However, they still end up in the srpm.
The fedora-review tool does not see this as a problem: "Note: Checking
patched sources after %prep for licenses."
Is it really so that srpms are allowed have content that violates
licenses, as long as %prep removes them? I am not able to find any
explicit confirmation for this interpretation the the Licensing
Guidelines [4]. Actually, the guidelines are generally do not make a
clear distinction between srpms and binary rpms.
Perhaps somebody on this list understands this topic and can explain how
this situation should be handled?
Regards,
Otto
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939875
[2]: https://github.com/vim/vim/tree/master/src/xxd
[3]: https://github.com/vim/vim/blob/master/LICENSE
[4]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
3 weeks, 2 days
Ignoring backup-file-in-package
by Vitaly Dolgov
Hi, everybody!
I'm working on a new RPM spec for Pd (Pure Data). And there is an error
from `rpmlint` (actually, `fedpkg --release f33 lint`) that I
cannot solve:
E: backup-file-in-package /usr/lib64/pd/extra/bob~
This is not a backup file, but a directory and there are
several of them. In Pd tilde in the end is used for so-called 'audio'
objects, so I cannot exclude these paths.
In which way should I modify spec to conform lint rules?
Thanks,
Vitaly
3 weeks, 2 days
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2021-03-18 16:00 - 16:20 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-2: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 16:01:09 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2021-03-18/fpc.2021-03...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 16:01:09)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 16:07:57)
* ACTION: Eighth_Doctor will fix versioning ;) (geppetto, 16:17:45)
Meeting ended at 16:20:15 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* Eighth_Doctor will fix versioning ;)
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* Eighth_Doctor
* Eighth_Doctor will fix versioning ;)
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* geppetto (33)
* Eighth_Doctor (29)
* mhroncok (17)
* zodbot (14)
* decathorpe (5)
* nirik (2)
* pingou (1)
* carlwgeorge (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
3 weeks, 6 days
Excluding tests with %gocheck -r not working
by Bryce Torcello
Hello all,
I'm still fairly new to packaging and I was packaging a golang library when one of it's tests relies on networking so I'd like to skip it. The Fedora packaging guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_runnin... suggests the `-r <regexp>` flag would help me do this, however I've not been able to get it to work.
I've tried `%gocheck -r get_gcs_test.go`, `%gocheck -r get_gcs_test.*`, `%gocheck -r ./get_gcs_test.go`, as well as adding double quotes around the filename, but none of these seem to have any effect on excluding the test. Am I using this flag incorrectly or is there a bug with this flag?
I looked at a number of other golang packages and I wasn't able to find any other uses of the `-r` flag. Only noting uses of the `-d <directory>` flag, which does seem to work in my case but excludes other tests which I do not want to exclude.
--
Bryce Torcello
https://procupti.me
4 weeks
Macronize %package -n python3-foo?
by Miro Hrončok
Hello Pythonistas.
I find myself cop-pasting this boring snippet each time I create a Python
package (using the old macros or the new):
%package -n python3-foo
Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python3-foo %_description
And using one of those in %files:
%files -n python3-foo
%files -n python3-foo -f %{pyproject_files}
I wonder whether it makes sense to macronize this.
For example:
Name: python-foo
...
%global _description %{expand:
This is the description for both SRPM and the python3-foo package.}
%description %_description
%py3_package %_description
...
%py3_files
...
Or maybe even (if possible):
Name: python-foo
...
%py3_package_with_description
This is the description for both SRPM and the python3-foo package.
...
%py3_files
...
Both macros would figure the package name by replacing the python- prefix from
%{name} with python3-.
Pros: No more copy-paste-edit \o/
Cons: The more is hidden from the reader behind automagic macros, the less
obvious is the spec file to somebody who tries to read or modify it :(
What is your opinion?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
4 weeks