packaging June 2005

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
6 discussions

example kernel-module package
by Thorsten Leemhuis 10 Jul '05

10 Jul '05

Hi guys, sorry, I was mostly away the last two days so you had to fight with kernel-modules alone. I'll try to catch up and reply where I think it's needed. Anyway, I created a example package with kernel-modules for ndiswrapper to play a bit with the discussed scheme. It I maintain ndiswrapper (and some other kernel-module-packages) already for livna. I just chooesed it for this example cause it's small, builds fast and needs a userspace-program and a kernel-module. I followed the example in the wiki and some posts on this list. I split the package in a userland package that creates a %{name}-kmsrc.rpm that is used by the kernel-module-package as source. Something like this would be neat package like nvidia als ati drivers where a single srpm is quite big if you want to rebuild only the kernel-module (yes, it seems a lot of users of livna users do that). Find the specs and SRPMS at http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/MISC.fdr/kernel-module-example/ Comments? -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>

8 37

Kernel modules (was: Re: tpctl in extras missing dependancy for kernel-module-thinkpad)
by Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:04 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 10:40 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > As an aside, I didn't think Extras was ready to tackle the issue of > > kernel module packages yet. > > Right, at least three issues remain: how to name the modules, how to > make depsolvers do the right thing with them, and how to request builds > for i586 and i686 from the build system for the same package. Screw i586 for now. As for naming, the kernel version needs to be stored *somewhere*. And we need to finalize the naming issue before we can decide what behavior depsolvers need. > But we should really fix the remaining issues with kernel module builds, > I'd like to get LIRC modules shipped too, and there may be other stuff > queued up from others. Anybody willing to (re)start or join this > discussion somewhere? fedora-packaging? Works for me. Here's my first submission: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00965.html I've had to make a few changes for FC4, and I'll post those later today when I get a chance. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez(a)ivazquez.net> http://fedora.ivazquez.net/ gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72

7 51

%check script issues
by Marius Feraru 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hello folks. Current Packaging Guidelines [1] don't say anything about the %check script, so the only source of _documentation_ for now is the mere paragraph from Maximum RPM [2] which states: " This script's primary function is to run the test suite of the built software to ensure that the binaries work correctly. Some typical commands to run in this script are make test or make check. " Ok, nothing new for now, but there is one footnote [3] there: " One popular hack to make spec files containing the %check script work with RPM versions older than 4.2 roughly similarly as in newer versions is to include it immediately after the %install script in the spec file and append '|| :' to it, like: %check || : " Fedora Extras team (seeing provided template specs from fedora-rpmdevtools) and everybody in fact (reviewing prior discussions on the various Fedora related channels - mailing list, websites) seems to agree on this and already started using this procedure on some of the current packages in Fedora Core/Extras. The hack suggested in [3] ("%check || :" _after_ %install) and the testing done determined that this %check is done after %install (sort of "%__spec_install_post"). So, here come my issues: a) Maybe I really don't get it (reading [2] again and again), but it seems more appropiate to append this %check to %build (or even prepend it to %install), but I see no point for doing it _after_ %install. b) What is the "easy" way to disable %check? "--define 'check exit 0'" doesn't sound as "easy" as e.g. "--without check". Ok, b) is more like a rant or something, but a) bothers me a lot. Before knowing about this %check, I was adding a %{!?_without_test:make test} to the %build script and this seems good enough for me. Why should I "upgrade" to using this %check script? TIA. References: [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines [2] http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-inside-scripts.html [3] http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-inside-scripts.html#FTN.AEN8053 - -- Marius Feraru http://www.altblue.com/ "It isn't easy being the parent of a three-years-old. However, it's a pretty small price to pay for having somebody around the house who understands computers." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFCvzM3n0ZKufYp8iURAgwbAJ9vq/rGlUqL/iO+wOmtcqmg0F6uiACfTGFm 4v5UcwUaSoVvhiJtDq7FUUA= =3s5Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 3

tetex packaging question
by Michael A. Peters 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

I'm packaging a package for personal use at the moment, I don't think I'll be submitting it to Extras any time soon as it has some issues (see bottom), but I want to make sure my personal packaging is what would be expected if it were to be submitted. package is latex2rtf It is suppose to translate a latex package to rtf http://mpeters.us/testing/latex2rtf.spec http://mpeters.us/testing/latex2rtf-1.9.15.destdir.patch http://mpeters.us/testing/latex2rtf-1.9.15-0.1.src.rpm Packaging questions - upstream ctan is a zip archive, but unlike most ctan archives - this archive contains a bunch of archives within it, including the source tar.gz tarball I'm using for the package (and an older version). So what I did is referenced where the ctan archive came from in a comment, noting the source tarball is contained within. That seemed better to me than having prep do everything inside a zip archive full of stuff that wasn't going to be used. Secondly - I'm not using the tetex namespace. Since upstream has latex in the name already, and it isn't a package that you would call from within a tetex document, I didn't think that was necessary. Thirdly - the package in the Makefile wants to put its .cfg files in /usr/local/share/latex2rtf I'm instead putting them in /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/latex2rtf Since it doesn't have any .sty files and isn't a package that a latex document would use, though, I'm not sure that that is the right thing to do. The reason I'm putting them there is because I wanted the documentation in texmf so that texdoc would find the documentation. Since it isn't a tetex package that other packages would use, is what I'm doing wrong? Thanks for comments. -=- The compile gives a LOT of warnings when compiled with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - but it works OK. The tex file I'm trying it out on has some png images and some complex math equations (some inline, some not) - but was created in LyX and I think needs some cleaning, there's some latex warnings - the resulting rtf has some unwanted text at the beginning of all non inline complex equations as part of the image "Created using babel.pl from version 3.7 ..." and the document is missing the table of contents and a few other minor things, but I don't know how much of that is a problem with latex2rtf or how much of it is caused by LyX exporting to tex in a possibly less than ideal way - but I'll figure that out when I have cleaned up the latex ;)

2 3

Using self-Obsoletes instead of Epoch bumps?
by Ville Skyttä 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

Has anyone ever experimented with or considered using self-Obsoletes as an alternative to Epoch bumps using plain rpm CLI and various depsolvers? Assuming there's a finite and known set of "supported" packages, listing all of them as an explicit, exact (note: always "=") Obsoletes: %{name} = $v-$r for each such (E)VR could possibly be thought of as a 3rd party friendly substitute for an Epoch bump. Sure, it would be a larger maintenance burden than the bump, but how much so, and would it even work in practice? Good/incrediby-stupid/something-in-between idea?

3 6

"License" tag for GPL w/ exception
by Ian Pilcher 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

I'm finally getting around to cleaning up the nedit SRPM (from Fedora CVS) for inclusion in Extras, and rpmlint is complaining about the "License: distributable" tag in the SPEC file. nedit is licensed under the GPL, with the following exception: In addition, as a special exception to the GNU GPL, the copyright holders give permission to link the code of this program with the Motif and Open Motif libraries (or with modified versions of these that use the same license), and distribute linked combinations including the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than linking with Motif/Open Motif. If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. So what is the appropriate tag? Thanks! -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher i.pilcher(a)comcast.net ========================================================================

2 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging June 2005