The packaging guidelines indicate that the following tags must not be used: Copyright: Packager: Vendor: PreReq: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
I wasn't aware that a package would even build if the first three were used, but it seems that a few instances of these tags persist.
Nothing uses Copyright:.
Five packages use Vendor: dpkg etoys gold netbeans storhaug
Packager: is used by mcollective
apmud has Prereq: chkconfig which is obviously a sign that something is amiss. But it's also marked ExclusiveArch: ppc which means that it hasn't existed anywhere since we dropped 32 bit ppc around, what, Fedora 12? The only commits are from mass rebuilds and people doing general cleanup.
ceph has "PreReq: %fillup_prereq" and I don't even know what that does. It seems to be inside of some suse-exclusive block, and so I'm not sure what is supposed to happen. Which is why that kind of thing is not permitted in Fedora. I guess that has to be another of those "nobody can touch this" packages.
In any case, I will now proceed to dead.package apmud, remove the few Vendor: and Packager: uses and try to pretend ceph does not exist. But for the record, here are the usual (but pleasantly short) lists:
Maintainers by package: apmud dwmw2 ceph branto dachary dmick ke4qqq kkeithle ktdreyer steve stingray dpkg kanarip sergiomb topdog etoys dsd gavin tuxbrewr gold zaniyah mcollective maxamillion netbeans moceap storhaug kkeithle
Packages by maintainer: branto ceph dachary ceph dmick ceph dsd etoys dwmw2 apmud gavin etoys kanarip dpkg ke4qqq ceph kkeithle ceph storhaug ktdreyer ceph maxamillion mcollective moceap netbeans sergiomb dpkg steve ceph stingray ceph topdog dpkg tuxbrewr etoys zaniyah gold
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:43 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
The packaging guidelines indicate that the following tags must not be used: Copyright: Packager: Vendor: PreReq: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
I wasn't aware that a package would even build if the first three were used, but it seems that a few instances of these tags persist.
Nothing uses Copyright:.
Five packages use Vendor: dpkg etoys gold netbeans storhaug
Packager: is used by mcollective
apmud has Prereq: chkconfig which is obviously a sign that something is amiss. But it's also marked ExclusiveArch: ppc which means that it hasn't existed anywhere since we dropped 32 bit ppc around, what, Fedora 12? The only commits are from mass rebuilds and people doing general cleanup.
ceph has "PreReq: %fillup_prereq" and I don't even know what that does. It seems to be inside of some suse-exclusive block, and so I'm not sure what is supposed to happen. Which is why that kind of thing is not permitted in Fedora. I guess that has to be another of those "nobody can touch this" packages.
In any case, I will now proceed to dead.package apmud, remove the few Vendor: and Packager: uses and try to pretend ceph does not exist. But for the record, here are the usual (but pleasantly short) lists:
Maintainers by package: apmud dwmw2 ceph branto dachary dmick ke4qqq kkeithle ktdreyer steve stingray dpkg kanarip sergiomb topdog etoys dsd gavin tuxbrewr
I want intending on retiring eToys in F-29 anyway, it's part of the Sugar stack, we've not shipped in SoaS for sometime and is for all intents and purpose dead upstream. I'll do that this week.
gold zaniyah mcollective maxamillion netbeans moceap storhaug kkeithle
Packages by maintainer: branto ceph dachary ceph dmick ceph dsd etoys dwmw2 apmud gavin etoys kanarip dpkg ke4qqq ceph kkeithle ceph storhaug ktdreyer ceph maxamillion mcollective moceap netbeans sergiomb dpkg steve ceph stingray ceph topdog dpkg tuxbrewr etoys zaniyah gold _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
My apologies; after closer inspection I see that dpkg is a false positive. It does match "^Vendor:" but that string occurs inside of a here-document within a section. Will improve the scripting to only look for tags when the rpm parser will be outside of section context.
I did fix the other issues yesterday. On to Group: removal (which will go through the feature process) and to a full check of source URL validity (like we used to have years ago).
- J<
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
I guess that has to be another of those "nobody can touch this" packages.
Hey, c'mon, Ceph doesn't bite (that badly...)
Seriously though, we do maintain ceph.spec upstream in http://github.com/ceph/ceph, in coordination with SUSE developers who do a good job helping with that complicated package. If there are changes that originate in the Fedora community, branto or I can push those upstream.
- Ken
-
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Ken Dreyer -
Peter Robinson