[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

[Tom Callaway]

Here is the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:

---

A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to the
intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
merge as many of them as possible into the upstream boost source tree,
and the visible efforts of the upstream to keep the bundled copy of
boost in sync with the current boost releases.

The package must also include a Requires: bundled(boost) = $VERSION
where $VERSION is the boost version being bundled.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_gr...

---

Packages which have SysV initscripts that contain 'non-standard service
commands' (commands besides start, stop, reload, restart, or
try-restart) must convert those commands into standalone helper scripts.
Systemd does not support non-standard unit commands.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files

---

A section was added to the systemd Packaging Guidelines page with a link
to the Tmpfiles.d Packaging Guidelines page, since systemd uses Tmpfiles.d.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Tmpfiles.d

---

The Ruby Packaging Guidelines were almost completely rewritten. If you
maintain ruby packages in Fedora, we advise that you review the new
guidelines.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby

---

An informational note about Software Collection macros in Fedora
Packages was added:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Software_Collection_M...

---

The guidelines relating to PIE and Hardened Packages were updated. Now,
if your package meets the following critera you MUST enable the PIE
compiler flags:

* Your package is long running. This means it's likely to be started and
keep running until the machine is rebooted, not start on demand and quit
on idle.

* Your package has suid binaries, or binaries with capabilities.

* Your package runs as root.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE

---

Rules involving appropriate scripting within Fedora Package spec files
were added to the Guidelines:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scripting_inside_of_s...

---

The section in the systemd guidelines covering EnvironmentFiles and
support for /etc/sysconfig files was revised for clarification.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#EnvironmentFiles_and_sup...

---

The Ada Packaging Guidelines were updated for new rules on packaging
source files and updated macros.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ada

---

The section of the Packaging Guidelines describing the "bootstrapping"
binary exception was amended for clarification:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions

---

The section of the Packaging Guidelines describing Duplication of system
libraries was amended to clarify the exceptions for Javascript and
parallel stacks.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system...

---

These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging
Committee (FPC).

Many thanks to Kevin Fenzi, Bohuslav Kabrda, Brett Lentz, Marcela
Mašláňová, Bill Nottingham, Vít Ondruch, Mamoru Tasaka, and all of the
members of the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing
these guidelines.

As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If
you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can
suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure

Thanks,

~tom
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce

[Fedora-packaging] [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 04:57:29 PM Tom Callaway wrote:
>  A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to
> the
>  intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
>  merge as many of them as possible into the upstream boost source tree,
>  and the visible efforts of the upstream to keep the bundled copy of
>  boost in sync with the current boost releases.
>  
>  The package must also include a Requires: bundled(boost) = $VERSION
>  where $VERSION is the boost version being bundled.
>  
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_grant
>  ed_exceptions
>   
While I appreciate the work Brett Lentz has been putting in upstream, why does 
this package have to be taken away from me?

I'm already facing a "thanks for your work but no thanks"[1].

I respectfully request Uncle Shadowman *not* be forcefully made the owner of 
the package, and the reporter of the review request be granted ownership.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696#c114

-- 
Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
m: [phone]
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08

[Fedora-packaging] [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

[Rex Dieter]

On 04/14/2012 02:32 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  On Thursday, April 12, 2012 04:57:29 PM Tom Callaway wrote:
> > A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to the
> > intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
> > merge as many of them as possible into the upstream boost source tree,
> > and the visible efforts of the upstream to keep the bundled copy of
> > boost in sync with the current boost releases.
> >
> > The package must also include a Requires: bundled(boost) = $VERSION
> > where $VERSION is the boost version being bundled.
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_grant
> > ed_exceptions
> >
>
>  While I appreciate the work Brett Lentz has been putting in upstream, why does
>  this package have to be taken away from me?
>
>  I'm already facing a "thanks for your work but no thanks"[1].
>
>  I respectfully request Uncle Shadowman *not* be forcefully made the owner of
>  the package, and the reporter of the review request be granted ownership.
>
>  Kind regards,
>
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen
>
>  [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696#c114 
No need for this to be mutually exclusive, unless one (or both) of you 
are averse to being comaintainers?

-- rex

[Fedora-packaging] [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

On Saturday, April 14, 2012 03:11:46 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>  No need for this to be mutually exclusive, unless one (or both) of
> you
>  are averse to being comaintainers?
>   
I'm objecting based on the matters of principle and due process.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

-- 
Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
m: [phone]
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08

[Fedora-packaging] [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

[Brett Lentz]

On 14/04/12 20:32 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2012 04:57:29 PM Tom Callaway wrote:
> > A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to the
> > intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
> > merge as many of them as possible into the upstream boost source tree,
> > and the visible efforts of the upstream to keep the bundled copy of
> > boost in sync with the current boost releases.
> >
> > The package must also include a Requires: bundled(boost) = $VERSION
> > where $VERSION is the boost version being bundled.
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_grant
> > ed_exceptions
> >
>
> While I appreciate the work Brett Lentz has been putting in upstream, why does
> this package have to be taken away from me?
>
> I'm already facing a "thanks for your work but no thanks"[1].
>  
I apologize if that's how it sounded. That wasn't my intended meaning. The issue
was that
you just started dropping your updated specs into the bug report without any
comment and seemingly prior to understanding the scope of the exception
that was granted. In addition, your last update to the bug was on 2010-11-21. As far as I
could
tell, you had abandoned this review request.

> I respectfully request Uncle Shadowman *not* be forcefully made the
> owner of
> the package, and the reporter of the review request be granted ownership.
>  
As we've discussed elsewhere, I see no reason why we can't share ownership of
the package. We've both contributed quite a bit to making the package
acceptable for Fedora, and there's plenty of room for both of us to continue
maintaining it.

> Kind regards,
>
> Jeroen van Meeuwen
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696#c114
>
> -- 
> Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG
>
> e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
> m: [phone]
> w: http://www.kolabsys.com
>
> pgp: 9342 BF08 
---Brett.

[Till Maas]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:57:29PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:

>  Packages which have SysV initscripts that contain 'non-standard
> service
>  commands' (commands besides start, stop, reload, restart, or
>  try-restart) must convert those commands into standalone helper scripts.
>  Systemd does not support non-standard unit commands.
>  
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files 
The guideline for SysV initscripts[0] also specifies the commands
force-reload, status and usage. Why are these dropped?

Also how should new helper scripts be named after the conversion? A best
practice naming schema would make it a lot easier for a user to find the
matching helper script for removed commands.

Regards
Till

[0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Required_Actions

[Bill Nottingham]

Till Maas (opensource(a)till.name) said: 
>  On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:57:29PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>  
>  > Packages which have SysV initscripts that contain 'non-standard service
>  > commands' (commands besides start, stop, reload, restart, or
>  > try-restart) must convert those commands into standalone helper scripts.
>  > Systemd does not support non-standard unit commands.
>  > 
>  > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files
>  
>  The guideline for SysV initscripts[0] also specifies the commands
>  force-reload, status and usage. Why are these dropped? 
status is a standard command, although scripts that do non-obvious status things
would need to implement them in other ways. (See 'network status', as an
example.)

force-reload is a standard command.

usage is not a standard command... since systemd enforces a standard set of
verbs, it's sort of obsolete.

Bill