packages which add user accounts: is fedora-usermgmt the way?
by Matthew Miller
Is there an official policy for what packages that add users for their
processes to run as ought to do? I notice the recent clamav package still
uses fedora-usrmgmt, but I can't find any reference to that in the current
wiki, and that package still has the obsolete fedora.us wiki as its URL.
What's the Right Thing here?
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 77 degrees Fahrenheit.
18 years
updating versions policy
by Michael A. Peters
I know that with shared libraries, it generally is not a good idea to
push an update that involves versioning a shared library because the
user may have software their system that is linked against the older
shared library, but is there a general policy about other software?
One of the packages I maintain in Extras is likely to be named as a
sourceforge project of the month. The upstream developer is working
overtime to finish implementing some things before that happens. The
package is gourmet (PyGTK recipe manager) and absolutely nothing depends
upon it - and I'm thinking that when he has these things finished, that
might be a good time to update the package in Extras.
Since it is not a package which is designed to have anything else depend
on it, I'm assuming there is not a problem with a version update in
Extras? Is that the case?
The project is under fairly rapid development but I don't intend to
package every little update simply because most of them don't add
anything worth an update imho, but I think the update he is planning
(after testing) is will be worth pushing an update.
18 years, 1 month
Using %{dist} for conditional compilation
by Orion Poplawski
Is it kosher to use the %{dist} tag for conditional compilation? The
shift from g77 to gfortran in FC3->FC4 has led to the need to compile
packages differently for the two distributions.
--
Orion Poplawski
System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222
Colorado Research Associates/NWRA FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301 http://www.co-ra.com
18 years, 2 months
Multiline %defines
by Ralf Corsepius
Hi,
Is there a portable (portable across different versions of rpm)
way to override specify defines which span across several lines, from
inside of a spec file?
Background: I am trying to override __os_install_post from inside of a
spec file, similar to this:
..
%define __os_install_post \
./brp-custom-compress \
./brp-custom-strip \
%{nil}
..
This seems to work on rpm-4.4.x (FC4), but seems to fail with
rpm-4.0.x (rh7.3):
# rpmbuild tmp.spec
....
error: Macro %__os_install_post has empty body
error: line 55: Unknown tag: ./brp-compress \
AFAIS, rpm-4.0.x chokes on the line continuation char.
Ralf
18 years, 2 months
Building src.rpm's outside of mock/mach
by Michael A. Peters
I'm all for building rpm's inside mach/mock because it avoids unintended
dependencies (IE you build sox outside of mock, and have lame-devel and
libmad-devel on your system, the resulting sox rpm will be linked
against them)
But what about cases where building outside of mock results in a build
error, should that be considered a packaging error?
The question came about as result of working on a gstreamer-plugins
add-on package.
If make install is used in the spec file, it works fine when built
inside mock because the necessary devel packages for core plugins are
not there.
But when the same src.rpm is rebuilt on a user system, it may result in
a build error because make install will potentially build plugins that
aren't intended to be packaged.
Is it a packaging error if a src.rpm can only be expected to reliably
build inside mock/mach?
If it is a packaging error, what would be the best course of action?
Some solutions include manually installing what you DO want to package
(what I have been doing), perhaps a bunch of configure switches telling
configure not to build all of the plugins you don't intend to package,
or telling rpm to ignore unpackaged files.
18 years, 2 months
Where to install examples to?
by Ralf Corsepius
Hi,
I am observing packages in FE installing examples/demos to /usr/bin.
Do people agree upon this to be good packaging practice or not?
IMO, it is not, because
* This gradually fills up /usr/bin.
* Many such examples/demos are semi-functional or less and have never
been designed to be used by the public.
I'd recommend to install examples/demos to either
/usr/lib/<package>/
or even to
/usr/share/doc/<package>
Opinions, comments?
Ralf
18 years, 2 months
example kernel-module package
by Thorsten Leemhuis
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>
18 years, 2 months
kver in release (was: Re: rpms/kernel-module-thinkpad/devel kernel-module-thinkpad-console.perms, NONE, 1.1 kernel-module-thinkpad.modules, NONE, 1.1 kernel-module-thinkpad.spec, 1.7, 1.8 kernel-module-thinkpad-README.Fedora, 1.1, NONE"
by Thorsten Leemhuis
Not really important, but imho important enough to send this mail:
Am Samstag, den 02.07.2005, 07:28 -0400 schrieb Ville Skytta:
>[...]
> +Release: 2.%(echo %{kver} | tr - _)
>[...]
I'm still wondering if another character would be better. "_" is already
used in the %{release} of the kernel -- imho it's a bit confusing. And
it's not easy to convert the result or this tr"" back to the original
output of "uname -r" if someone wants to do that.
--
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>
18 years, 3 months
what about fedora?
by Adrian Chelar
What is fedora? a new linux project? Is newer than rumanian dracula linux?
Sad but i need to say dracula package manager is better than fedora.
RPM = bullshit in my opinion.
You need to use dracula package manager to obtain new features !!!
Adrian Chelar
Home : iulian(a)create.ro
Office : office(a)create.ro
18 years, 3 months
