packaging January 2024

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
6 discussions

license of the binary policy
by Jilayne Lovejoy 25 Mar '24

25 Mar '24

Hi Fedora legal and packaging, I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups. The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec file (as described at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelin… ) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask." As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora licensing, it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the following: 1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice? 2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be helpful? 3) should this policy be different, and if so, how? 4) any other related thoughts or observations Thanks! Jilayne

12 39

%forgesetup failing to unpack *multiple* spec SOURCEs -- usage, or bug?
by pgnd 02 Feb '24

02 Feb '24

i'm building a 2-source pkg @ COPR (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pgfed/test/) i'm using %forge pkg'ing macros. my spec contains Source0: %{forgesource0} Source1: %{forgesource1} if %prep contains (@ test1.spec) ... %prep %forgesetup -a (or %forgesetup -z 0 %forgesetup -z 1 ) exit 255 ... COPR build fails to unpack the 2nd SOURCE (https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pgfed/test/fedora-39-x86…) ... archiveurl0: https://api.github.com/repos/owasp-modsecurity/ModSecurity/tarball/v3.0.12 ... extractdir0: owasp-modsecurity-ModSecurity-e7ecdd6 ... forgesource1: https://api.github.com/repos/client9/libinjection/tarball/v3.10.0 ... extractdir1: client9-libinjection-bf234eb ... Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2IIb7G + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf owasp-modsecurity-ModSecurity-e7ecdd6 + /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x /builddir/build/SOURCES/v3.0.12 + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd owasp-modsecurity-ModSecurity-e7ecdd6 + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILD/owasp-modsecurity-ModSecurity-e7ecdd6-SPECPARTS + /usr/bin/mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILD/owasp-modsecurity-ModSecurity-e7ecdd6-SPECPARTS + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf client9-libinjection-bf234eb + /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x /builddir/build/SOURCES/v3.0.12 + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd client9-libinjection-bf234eb /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2IIb7G: line 52: cd: client9-libinjection-bf234eb: No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2IIb7G (%prep) ... NOTE, that after the proc'ing of the 2nd SOURCE begins, + rm -rf client9-libinjection-bf234eb rpmuncompress execs, **incorrectly**, on the **1st** SOURCE @ /builddir/build/SOURCES/v3.0.12 rather than the /builddir/build/SOURCES/v3.10.0 OTOH, if i mod %prep (@ test2.spec; otherwise unchanged ...), ... %prep - %forgesetup -a + rm -rf %{extractdir0} + rm -rf %{extractdir1} + /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x -v %{_sourcedir}/%{branch0} + pigz -dcq "%{_sourcedir}/%{branch0}" | tar -xvvof - + /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x -v %{_sourcedir}/%{branch1} + pigz -dcq "%{_sourcedir}/%{branch1}" | tar -xvvof - exit 255 ... the build 'fails correctly, at the `exit 255`, after correctly unpacking BOTH sources (https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pgfed/test/fedora-39-x86…) ... RPM build errors: + /bin/cp -af /builddir/build/BUILD/client9-libinjection-bf234eb/src /builddir/build/BUILD/owasp-modsecurity-ModSecurity-e7ecdd6/others/libinjection/ + exit 255 iiuc https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_multi… %forgesetup _should_ correctly unpack BOTH sources is my usage incorrect in the .spec? or, a bug here?

1 1

BuildrootError: could not init mock buildroot ... see root.log ...
by Brad Bell 18 Jan '24

18 Jan '24

I got the Result in the subject above for the following build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111912575 Looking at the corresponding root.log https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2575/111912575/root.log does not indicate to me what went wrong or how I should proceed ?

4 4

Re: Host: buildvm-x86-16.iad2.fedoraproject.org
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

Replying to the list. Please don't reply to me directly. On Tuesday, 09 January 2024 at 10:54, Brad Bell wrote: > I guess I did not make myself clear. I will try again. > > The over all build that failed is > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111475888 > > The only descendant that failed is > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111475973 This is the i686 build. > The log for the test that failed is > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5973/111475973/build.log > In the log, you will find the actual assertion that caused the failure: > Error detected by false result for > i_ptr % sizeof(double) == 0 > at line 831 in the file > /builddir/build/BUILD/cppad-20240000.1/CppAD-20240000.1/include/cppad/utility/thread_alloc.hpp Looks like the code makes an incorrect assumption about pointer size and double variable size. > I would like to know which fedora test machine I should use so that I > can reproduce this failure and test fixing it. You can use any of the x86_64 test machines, but I'm pretty sure you own a x86_64 machine yourself. You can build the package using fedpkg srpm mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 cppad-20240000.1-1.fc40.src.rpm to reproduce this issue locally on either your or Fedora test machine. This is almost exactly what koji uses to build packages. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://fedoraproject.org Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic. -- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

2 1

Host: buildvm-x86-16.iad2.fedoraproject.org
by Brad Bell 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

I have a rawhide build that failed on Host: buildvm-x86-16.iad2.fedoraproject.org Is one of the test machines listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintaine… appropriate for testing fixes to the build ? In general, how does one map the Host for which a build fails to the corresponding test machine ?

2 1

Expressing iptables/nftables dependency
by Reto Gantenbein 03 Jan '24

03 Jan '24

Merry Christmas everyone I have an application that can either work with legacy iptables (`iptables-legacy` and `ebtables-legacy`) or `nftables`. So I'm trying to specify this as a dependency in a spec file. If a user has not installed any of it (or `iptables-nft`) then `nftables` should be preferred. I thought this would be easy with a RPM boolean dependency [1]: Requires: (ebtables-legacy if iptables-legacy else nftables) When installing the RPM with this expression and no `iptables-legacy` nor `nftables` already installed then `dnf` will want to install `ebtables-legacy` and `iptables-legacy`. Only when I include `nftables` in the `dnf install` command it will ignore the legacy package dependencies. Is there a way to express that I want `nftables` by default except a user has already `iptables-legacy` installed? Cheers, Reto [1]: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/boolean_dependencies.h…

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging January 2024