2:23 p.m.
A number of packages install files to /etc/rpm in Rawhide; the proper
place for macros.* is /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d for rpm >= 4.11. And no
matter what the location, these files should not be marked as %config.
Specfiles not targeting EL < 7 can simply replace %{_sysconfdir}/rpm
with %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d and ones that wish to stay compatible
with EL5 and 6 can do something like this to find the proper dir:
%global macrosdir %(d=%{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d; [ -d $d ] ||
d=%{_sysconfdir}/rpm; echo $d)
List of affected packages follows (maintainer package comaintainers):
bkabrda python3 amcnabb,bkabrda,mstuchli,tomspur
bkabrda python bkabrda,dmalcolm,ivazquez,jsteffan,mstuchli,tomspur,tradej
cicku ldc bioinfornatics
deji mpich (none)
dledford openmpi dajt,deji,orion
epienbro mingw-filesystem ivanromanov,kalev,rjones
erikos sugar-toolkit erikos,pbrobinson,sdz,tomeu
erikos sugar-toolkit-gtk3 dsd,pbrobinson
jakub prelink mjw
jcapik octave alexlan,fkluknav,jussilehtola,mmahut,orion,rakesh
jjames ffcall salimma
jjames gap (none)
jjames xemacs stevetraylen
jnovy texlive pertusus,than
jorton httpd hubbitus,jkaluza
jorton php-pear remi,timj
jorton php remi
jplesnik perl corsepiu,cweyl,iarnell,jplesnik,kasal,perl-sig,ppisar,psabata,spot
jussilehtola libint (none)
jzeleny scl-utils bkabrda,jzeleny
kanarip ruby bkabrda,jstribny,kanarip,mmorsi,mtasaka,skottler,tagoh,vondruch
kanarip rubygems kanarip,mtasaka,skottler,stahnma,vondruch
kwizart color-filesystem rhughes
limb drupal7 asrob,pfrields,siwinski
mmorsi jruby bkabrda,goldmann,vondruch
mstuchli pypy tomspur
msuchy rhn-client-tools mzazrive
nim fontpackages fonts-sig,frixxon,tagoh
orion hdf5 davidcl,pertusus
patches nodejs-packaging humaton,jamielinux,mrunge,sgallagh
patches nodejs-tap jamielinux
peter erlang-rpm-macros erlang-sig
petersen ghc-rpm-macros haskell-sig,petersen
phracek emacs jgu,phracek
pjones pesign (none)
pmatilai redhat-rpm-config jcm,pmatilai
ppisar perl-srpm-macros mmaslano,perl-sig
rdieter ggz-base-libs (none)
rdieter polkit-qt mbriza,rnovacek,than
remi php-horde-Horde-Role nb
rmattes ros-release (none)
rombobeorn fedora-gnat-project-common (none)
rstrode GConf2 walters
s4504kr blender fcami,hobbes1069,kwizart,roma
s4504kr gnustep-make s4504kr,salimma
smani keyrings-filesystem (none)
sochotni javapackages-tools java-sig,mizdebsk,msimacek,msrb
spot generic-release bruno
spot R salimma
than sip kkofler,ltinkl,rdieter
twaugh cups jpopelka
2:32 a.m.
Dne 31.1.2014 21:23, Ville Skyttä napsal(a):
A number of packages install files to /etc/rpm in Rawhide; the
proper
place for macros.* is /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d for rpm >= 4.11. And no
matter what the location, these files should not be marked as %config.
Specfiles not targeting EL < 7 can simply replace %{_sysconfdir}/rpm
with %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d and ones that wish to stay compatible
with EL5 and 6 can do something like this to find the proper dir:
%global macrosdir %(d=%{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d; [ -d $d ] ||
d=%{_sysconfdir}/rpm; echo $d)
Thanks for bringing this up. Just FYI, I proposed macro for the RPM
macros directory [1], which was not yet accepted/implemented:
List of affected packages follows (maintainer package comaintainers):
kanarip ruby bkabrda,jstribny,kanarip,mmorsi,mtasaka,skottler,tagoh,vondruch
kanarip rubygems kanarip,mtasaka,skottler,stahnma,vondruch
Will take care of these as soon as new Ruby is approved for F21. The fix
is already prepared for some while in Ruby 2.1 branch [2].
Vít
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045070
[2]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/commit/?h=private-ruby-2.1&am...
6:59 a.m.
Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta(a)iki.fi> writes:
sochotni javapackages-tools java-sig,mizdebsk,msimacek,msrb
Fixed in upstream git, will be in next release
--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience
PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
10:36 a.m.
On 2014-01-31, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta(a)iki.fi> wrote:
A number of packages install files to /etc/rpm in Rawhide; the
proper
place for macros.* is /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d for rpm >= 4.11. And no
matter what the location, these files should not be marked as %config.
[...]
jplesnik perl corsepiu,cweyl,iarnell,jplesnik,kasal,perl-sig,ppisar,psabata,spot
[...]
ppisar perl-srpm-macros mmaslano,perl-sig
Fixed in perl-5.18.2-296.fc21 and perl-srpm-macros-1-11.fc21.
-- Petr
10:45 a.m.
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:23:51 +0200
Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta(a)iki.fi> wrote:
Specfiles not targeting EL < 7 can simply replace
%{_sysconfdir}/rpm
with %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d and ones that wish to stay compatible
with EL5 and 6 can do something like this to find the proper dir:
%global macrosdir %(d=%{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d; [ -d $d ] ||
d=%{_sysconfdir}/rpm; echo $d)
jussilehtola libint (none)
Fixed.
--
Susi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org
4:20 a.m.
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta(a)iki.fi> wrote:
List of affected packages follows (maintainer package
comaintainers):
Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs? Yes, it's more work initially,
but the work would have a larger impact (the bug would keep being tracked,
unlike an e-mail that is easily forgotten, and the rest of the mailing list
wouldn't have to read "fixed in..." mail.
(I truly don't know; perhaps it really is better to do small cleanups with
a simple email without worrying whether the mass-filing script will run
amok. So I'm asking.)
Mirek
5:41 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:40:20AM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz>
wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
simple change.
+1
Regards
Till
5:42 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsient(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz>
wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
simple change.
Well, yes. That (or getting an automated check so that it is fixed once
for all) puts an even bigger burden on the person noticing the problem. It
should be possible to just flag a problem without committing to fix it
personally - with the number of packages we have, we do need to distribute
the work.
Mirek
5:52 a.m.
On 02/05/2014 11:40 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
simple change.
Usually yes. But e.g. in rhn-client-tools this path is used in code and the change is
non-trivial.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
8:08 a.m.
Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> writes:
On 02/05/2014 11:40 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
> the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
> simple change.
Usually yes. But e.g. in rhn-client-tools this path is used in code and the change is
non-trivial.
It was similar in javapackages-tools. It included a change in
documentation which would have most likely been missed by eager
provenpackager and maintainers could just ignore a closed bug so this
wouldn't have been fixed...
Generally filing those 42 (yay, what a nice number) bugs would have been
better IMO, but if you are willing to re-run that repoquery in a few
months and file bugs for remaining packages I see no harm.
--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience
PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
3:50 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz>
wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
I do keep track of the affected packages and may end up doing that,
depending on what happens in a week or two since I posted the initial
message. It's good to see some maintainers fix their packages, but I
don't think posting "fixed" messages on list has any value.
For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
simple change.
The problem with doing that is that it may end up keeping unmaintained
packages lingering around unnoticed as they won't get flagged for not
being built/updated by maintainers for N releases. I've done a bunch
of such sweeping changes, for example fixed a lot of packages for the
unversioned docdirs change in F-20 but I'm afraid that if maintainers
couldn't be bothered to do such a simple think (and many not even
bothered to simply merge the changes I made to rawhide to their F-20
branches and ship the update, nor replying to the filed bug), many of
the packages I touched were effectively unmaintained and should have
got new maintainers or be retired.
6:05 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta(a)iki.fi> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Richard Hughes
<hughsient(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz> wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
I do keep track of the affected packages and may end up doing that,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074261
5:41 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
There is a rough Guideline about mass bug filing:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing
If not all packages are fixed after a while, the bugs can still be
filed. However it is also quite annoying if a lot of bugs are filed
prematurely. For example I a lot of bugs were filed for missing AArch64
support but this was something that was fixed (for most if not all
packages) at RPM level and not the individual package, resulting in lots
of unnecessary bugs for which nobody felt responsible closing after they
became invalid.
Regards
Till
4:46 a.m.
On 01/31/2014 09:23 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
msuchy rhn-client-tools mzazrive
Filed upstream bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061013
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
12:24 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/2014 03:23 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
A number of packages install files to /etc/rpm in Rawhide; the
proper place for macros.* is /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d for rpm >= 4.11.
And no matter what the location, these files should not be marked
as %config.
...
s4504kr gnustep-make s4504kr,salimma
Fixed in gnustep-make-2.6.6-2
- --
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: michel-slm(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS9HwXAAoJEEr1VKujapN6uLcH/RwBJ6BLneiEgtLxPzOAtHwa
MwBbO1R3NkOc4HtB03e+YqlewYVbFXZhgQDF5rUYU0SMc/y6Yyh0uHFsvtOtuycj
l5cNxMsIG3CiF1xuVeDkDVdWwyFX7UtzbW0MgdzrPvJA22c8s63fmlleED/rzz2V
75PXMhnbGtTwYKRH2rhcFUsFSfVFm6O661S8+jAk+quLLZc/qsA7IbacUFcHBJzV
VklCPDp+sx1R50YIcuNBuMzZ4Vj8feQGWZ98nbCETCo4tytZIA74TsN8N90maNHD
ZrJrVXsYK5KJOYHSEikRihBlg00pP6e8Hx5Aj2QAupKTQN89nQ6DvzGaOo6hZcU=
=UbX4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3700
days inactive
3737
days old
20 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Bohuslav Kabrda -
Jiri Popelka -
Michel Alexandre Salim -
Miloslav Trmač -
Miroslav Suchý -
Petr Hracek -
Petr Pisar -
Richard Hughes -
Sandro Mani -
Stanislav Ochotnicky -
Susi Lehtola -
Till Maas -
Ville Skyttä -
Vít Ondruch