packaging April 2021

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
9 discussions

RPM-level auto release and changelog bumping - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal
by Ben Cotton 13 Aug '22

13 Aug '22

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpm_level_auto_release_and_changelog… == Summary == redhat-rpm-config will be updated so users of the auto framework get automated release and changelog bumping. == Owner == * Name: [[User:nim| Nicolas Mailhot]] * Email: <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> == Detailed Description == This is a system-wide change because all packages build with redhat-rpm-config, but it only concerns packages that opted to use this part of redhat-rpm-config (auto framework). The change will make those packages auto-bump and auto-changelog at the rpm level, in an infrastructure-independent way. == Benefit to Fedora == Autobumping removes a huge packager shore and makes timestamping in changelogs more reliable. == Scope == * Proposal owners: The feature is coded and works at the rpm level. Unfortunately, mock filters away the srpms containing the bump state, so it does not work in upper layers. * Other developers: The feature requires buy-in by mock developers (and probably koji developers) to lift the restrictions that block it above the rpm level. Also, it requires a mechanism to pass the user name and email that will be used in bumped changelogs (defining two variables in ~/.rpmmacros is sufficient at rpm level) * Mock issue: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/599 * Release engineering: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9567 * Policies and guidelines: maybe eventually if things work out on the technical level * FPC issue: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/998 * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) == Upgrade/compatibility impact == This is a pure build tooling update, it changes how things are built not what is built. == How To Test == A redhat-rpm-config packages with the changes and some example packages are available in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/refactoring-forge-patches-auto-… Since the mock/copr layer is currently blocking the feature, you need to install the redhat-rpm-config and forge macro packages available in this repo locally. Afterwards you can take any of the example packages in the repo and rebuild them with rpmbuild -ba to your heart content, and see the releases bump and the changelogs being updated accordingly. To get beautiful changelogs, you also need to add <pre> %buildsys_name Your name %buildsys_email Your email </pre> in ~/.rpmmacros == User Experience == N/A Packager experience change only == Dependencies == The change is a spin-off of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Patches_in_Forge_macros_-_Auto_macro… Therefore, it depends on the success of that other change and will probably need rebasing if the code in this other change evolves during the redhat-rpm-config merge. It also depends on mock / copr/ koji buy-in and changes, that may add their own requirements. == Contingency Plan == There is no contingency plan because the change will happen or not at all. == Documentation == There is as much documentation as the average redhat-rpm-config change (ie comments in the macro files themselves) == Release Notes == N/A Packager productivity change only -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

12 23

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2019-08-15 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 19 Jul '21

19 Jul '21

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2019-08-15 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2019-08-15 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2019-08-15 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2019-08-15 16:00 UTC UTC 2019-08-15 17:00 BST Europe/London 2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2019-08-15 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2019-08-16 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2019-08-16 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2019-08-16 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2019-08-16 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 #902 Cleanup & enhance spec files .fpc 902 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/902 #topic #904 Caret versioning .fpc 904 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/904 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check .fpc 909 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909 #topic #914 Automatic R runtime dependencies .fpc 914 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/914 = 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 * 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.

3 2

Odd problem with obsoletes in EPEL8
by Martin Jackson 19 Jul '21

19 Jul '21

Hello, I'm having a problem I don't understand how to fix, and I would appreciate some guidance. I'm maintaining nagios-plugins, which bundles a number of different "check" plugins and has some metapackages that include different subsets of those check plugins. In the EL 8.2 release cycle, one of the dependencies of one of those plugins was moved from EPEL into EL proper, which broke new installs of that plugin and the -all metapackage. A user filed a bug, so as a temporary workaround, I stopped building the plugin package with that dependency (nagios-plugins-ssl_validity, and had that version (nagios-plugins-2.3.3-3) obsolete the ssl_validity plugin, since leaving it around caused it to want to keep the base package in conflict with other packages that were upgrading. Now that CentOS 8.2 is released, and the dependency is available, I've issued an update (https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-70bcfe5382) that builds ssl_validity again, and also adds it back to the -all subpackage. I can upgrade it sucessfully (which installs the ssl_validity plugin again, as expected), but subsequent calls to dnf upgrade give this error: Obsoleting Packages nagios-plugins.x86_64 2.3.3-3.el8 epel nagios-plugins-ssl_validity.x86_64 2.3.3-4.el8 @epel-testing nagios-plugins 2.3.3-3 is not installed anymore, and there are no explicit Obsoletes: in the ssl_validity package. I'm not sure what needs to be done here, but whatever it is I'm willing to make the change. Also wondering if this is expected behavior. Thanks, Marty

2 1

Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
by Otto Urpelainen 04 Jul '21

04 Jul '21

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_direct… [2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639 [3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectorie…

4 8

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2021-04-22 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 21 Apr '21

21 Apr '21

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2021-04-22 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2021-04-22 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2021-04-22 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2021-04-22 16:00 UTC UTC 2021-04-22 17:00 BST Europe/London 2021-04-22 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2021-04-22 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2021-04-22 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2021-04-23 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2021-04-23 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2021-04-23 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2021-04-23 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followup Actions = #topic #pr-814 * mhroncok talk to authors again, having a working example might help a lot = Followup Issues = #topic #886 Enable BRP for detecting RPATH .fpc 886 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1045 WIP: Add discussion of macro names beginning with underscores. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1045 = 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 * 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

Golang package naming for packages from sourcehut
by Gergely Polonkai 20 Apr '21

20 Apr '21

Hello, I’m about to create a package for getopt[1], which is hosted on sr.ht. For this, the import path looks like git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/getopt (note the tilde before the username). Using the GitHub username in package names is straightforward (as stated in [2]), but this tilde might cause problems. However, given that all usernames on Sourcehut begins with a tilde, i guess the correct package name here would be on of these: - golang-sourcehut-sircmpwn-getopt - golang-srht-sircmpwn-getopt Am i correct assuming this? Also, which one should i use? Based on the service name it should be “sourcehut”, but based on the service’s domain it should be “srht”. Best, Gergely [1] https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/getopt [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_naming

2 2

Are this Unicode Consortium files permissible content?
by Richard W.M. Jones 20 Apr '21

20 Apr '21

Bad news is we're shipping a non-free file in the ocaml-camomile package: https://github.com/yoriyuki/Camomile/blob/master/Camomile/locales/eo.txt The good news is that there is a later, possibly more permissively licensed version of the same data shipped by the Unicode Consortium. To replace the above file it looks like we'll need to combine the following files together: https://github.com/unicode-org/icu/blob/main/icu4c/source/data/region/eo.txt https://github.com/unicode-org/icu/blob/main/icu4c/source/data/locales/eo.t… https://github.com/unicode-org/icu/blob/main/icu4c/source/data/lang/eo.txt https://github.com/unicode-org/icu/blob/main/icu4c/source/data/rbnf/eo.txt The license of these is really unclear to me, but it seems as if from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing that _maybe_ we're OK? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/

2 1

How to automatically handle Python namespace packages (e.g. in %pyproject_save_files)
by Miro Hrončok 14 Apr '21

14 Apr '21

Hello Pythonistas. I'd like to be able to automatically handle Python "namespace" packages from our packaging macros. The problem: Several Python packages share a "namespace", let's take an artificial example with food.spam and food.eggs Python packages. 1. the Python packages both have site-packages/food 2. sometimes such packages also both have site-packages/food/__init__.py (usually empty or mostly empty, but with different mtimes etc.) On RPM level, this means: 1. %{python3_sitelib}/food can be co-owned OR it can be in an artificial python3-food(-filesystem) package [0] OR it can be in an existing package that is always present [1] 2. %{python3_sitelib}/food/__init__.py and %{python3_sitelib}/food/__pycache__/__init__.*.pyc will conflict if present in multiple packages, they need to be removed or shared from the python3-food(-filesystem) package I want to solve this once for all, define the best practice, document it in the packaging guidelines and possible automate this in %pyproject_save_files [2]. My current idea is: - sharing directories is safe and easy, let's do that instead of artificial packages (those are hard to automate) - namespace packages should not need __init__py with modern Python 3, let's discourage that - If needed for %check, the __init__.py + .pyc should be %ghosted [3] And with the %pyproject_save_files automation, let's say that if %pyproject_save_files is used with a dot: %pyproject_save_files food.spam The dots separates a namespace and: - food folder is co-owned - food/__init__.py + .pyc is %ghosted if found, possibly with a warning - any other Python files in food/ except spam.py or spam/ are not included In case of nested namespaces (I have never seen that in reality), this can be applied recursively. Since %pyproject_save_files takes globs, I propose we split the argument on dot and treat each part as a separate glob. An alternate proposal which is less magical, more explicit about the "namespace" situation but less explicit about what to include requires a special namespace flag: %pyproject_save_files -N food This says: Include food supackages, but food is a namespace package: - food folder is co-owned - food/__init__.py + .pyc is %ghosted if found, possibly with a warning - all other Python files in food/ are included Alternatively, this can be combined together somehow: %pyproject_save_files -N food spam But I don't like that. Thoughts? [0] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jaraco-packaging/blob/rawhide/f/p… [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx/blob/rawhide/f/python-sphi… [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935266 [3] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org… -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

2 2

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2021-04-08 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 08 Apr '21

08 Apr '21

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2021-04-08 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2021-04-08 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2021-04-08 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2021-04-08 16:00 UTC UTC 2021-04-08 17:00 BST Europe/London 2021-04-08 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2021-04-08 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2021-04-08 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2021-04-09 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2021-04-09 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2021-04-09 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2021-04-09 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followup Actions = #topic #pr-814 * mhroncok talk to authors again, having a working example might help a lot = Followup Issues = #topic #886 Enable BRP for detecting RPATH .fpc 886 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1045 WIP: Add discussion of macro names beginning with underscores. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1045 = 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 * 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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging April 2021