Request to drop %(%{__id_u} -n) in preferred buildroot
by Axel Thimm
Hi,
I think the `preferred buildroot' is not really making sense. The
above has developed historically out of a misunderstanding in ancient
buildroot times.
When people were building as root and BuildRoots were defined as
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root, some considered "root" to mean
the uid of the builder. Later %release was added and some replaced
root with `id -un`. Even later some realized that root was referring
to the BuildRoot and in order to play safe added both.
I'm using %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root in my
packages and someone is now nitpicking on why not using the preferred
BuildRoot as given in the guidelines. Instead of locally fighting a
BuildRoot battle, I'd better get the guidelines fixed ;)
Also consider what this really is about: Deambiguifying the BuildRoot
per package makes sense as there may be several build processes
sharing the same filesystem (either locally or through NFS), but
deambiguifying the build user, too, means that we assume that the same
EVR package will be possibly built on the same filesystem by
different users? And even simultaneously?
It makes more sense to include a conditional epoch or target/arch in
the buildroot that the builder. In fact the best thing for a
buildsystem is to override the buildroot adding a build-id to it
anyway.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
16 years, 9 months
--vendor fedora, rationale/motivation?
by Rex Dieter
Per
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FedoraDesktopEntryGuidelines:
The vendor prefix (desktop-file-install --vendor=...) must be set to
fedora".
I don't understand the rationale/motivation behind requiring '--vendor
fedora'
I can, however, see that desktop-file-install's current
implementation(*) of prepending %{vendor}- to the .desktop file name has
some problems/issues:
1. .desktop filename now varies from upstream
2. --vendor may change when/if Extras bits are pulled into Core and/or
RHEL.
3. *In particular*: when users start employing menu editors, since
most(all?) of them base their customizations on the .desktop file name.
-- Rex
(*) If desktop-file-install's implementation instead followed something
like kde's practice of using a vendor directory (e.g.
/usr/share/applications/kde), then (1) and (3) would no longer be an issue.
16 years, 10 months
.so files in main package for python packages
by Christopher Stone
Upstream says there is a packaging error in one of my packages,
pypoker-eval-devel.
Upstream claims that the .so file should not be in the devel package
but should be in the main package.
I told upstream about our .so rule saying .so files should be in
-devel, but he said this is not the case for python packages, and
promptly demonstrated that the libxml2-python package is similar and
that this package puts the .so files in the main pacakge on Fedora as
well.
So is libxml2-python package in error, or is upstream correct and
there are exceptions to the .so rule for python packages?
Upstream informs me that my package will break unless I put the .so
file in the main package.
16 years, 12 months
MS shared source license
by Paul F. Johnson
Hi,
I've packaged IronPython and it's quite happy here. However, it looks
like the license is the MS shared source one. Is it worth even
submitting it for FE review?
TTFN
Paul
--
"Der einzige Weg, Leute zu kontrollieren ist sie anzulügen" - L. Ron
"Ich kann kein Science-Fiction schreiben" Hubbard; Lügner, Betrüger,
Fixer und Wohltäter zu niemandem
17 years
Absent (Sep 28, 2006)
by Tom Callaway
Dear Teacher,
Spot will not be able to attend tomorrows FESCO and Fedora Packaging
Committee meetings because he has to go sell Linux to unsuspecting
companies in Indianapolis.
Please excuse him from his duties for the day.
Thanks,
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always
that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence
and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We
will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in
our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended
from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to
associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular."
-- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954
17 years
Including a static library
by Matthias Saou
Hi,
Regarding this bug : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/204568
It does makes sense to ship the DirectFB static libraries for some
users. So here are my questions :
- Should they be put into the existing -devel sub-package?
- Should they be put into a new separate sub-package? (-static)
I'm asking because since it's not really for "development", it would
make sense to split it out in a new sub-package. Also, that way it
would avoid any possible scenario where something rebuilding against
DirectFB would "accidentally" link statically instead of dynamically.
Thoughts? Some existing guideline I might have missed?
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 5.92 (FC6 Test3) - Linux kernel 2.6.17-1.2647.fc6
Load : 0.08 0.12 0.12
17 years
GTK+ icon cache "bugs" on ScriptletSnippets
by Marcin Garski
Hello,
I'm a maintainer of Krusader package in Fedora Extras. Recently I've
recived bug report http://bugzilla.redhat.com/206650
yum install krusader
Installing: krusader ######################### [1/1]
No theme index file in '/usr/share/icons/locolor'.
If you really want to create an icon cache here, use --ignore-theme-index.
I've started to investigate it. The problem is GTK+ icon cache. I've
used in my spec file scripts from:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets (GTK+ icon
cache section).
This scripts doesn't check if %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/index.theme
exist, so in this case gtk-update-icon-cache generate such error.
My proposed resolution for this bug can be found in
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/206860 but I will also paste it here:
if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
if [ -f %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/index.theme ]; then
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi
fi
--
Best Regards
Marcin Garski
17 years
Taking care of renamed config file
by Till Maas
Hiyas,
I am updating the spec of john to the newest version. John now uses john.conf
as config file but used john.ini before. Should I now rename existing
john.ini to john.conf within a post or pre scriptlet or only add the new
config file?
I would prefer to rename it in a pre scriptlet if it is an upgrade so that the
new shipped config file would be created as john.conf.rpmnew.
Regards,
Till
17 years
