Tcl packaging guidelines proposal
by Michael Thomas
I sent this proposal to f-m-l about a week ago to gather comments, and
there were no serious disagreements with the proposal which have not yet
been addressed (thanks to Tibbs and Toshio for their feedback).
Basically, I want to establish a set of guidelines for packaging Tcl
extensions, as we already have guidelines for other popular scripting
languages. In addition to making Tcl packages more consistent with each
other, it will also help work toward fixing my pet-peeve bug (bz #226893)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Tcl
Please let me know if I need to do anything to help get these draft
guidelines adopted.
Thanks,
--Wart
15 years, 11 months
fortran .mod files
by Patrice Dumas
Hello,
Currently there is no guideline regarding fortran 90 .mod, it seems to
me that one is needed. These files are generated by gfortran when
building a module. These are text files, but not intended to be read by
humans. They are architecture dependent. When compiling some code that
uses the module, the .mod has to be found in the include path (for
example in a directory specified by -I).
Where should the .mod be installed? I propose
%_libdir
%_libdir/include
%_libdir/modules
%_libdir/mod
%_libdir/f90
%_includedir/%_lib
%_includedir/%_lib/modules
%_includedir/%_lib/mod
%_includedir/%_lib/f90
(f90 may also be replaced by another meaningfull subdirectory name).
This directory could be called %_fmoddir
And add -I%_fmoddir in FFLAGS when compiling some code that
requires the module.
The optimal situation would be to have %_fmoddir defined in rpm macros
and -I%_fmoddir added to default FFLAGS.
So my first question is what is your advice about fortran modules
directories?
My second is, in case it is meaningful, what about my proposal regarding
rpm macros?
--
Pat
16 years
Re: [Long] Do we need a font SIG ?
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le Lun 26 novembre 2007 15:51, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 13:51 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> 7. The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our
>> FLOSS rules
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9c...
>> [for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids
>> modification, making it non-free
>> http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html]
>
> Open a bug report. Let's start the process of having it removed in F9.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=317641
>> 8. There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote
>> FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/), they are aligned with
>> Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far
>> (cf Liberation licensing choices)
>
> Keep in mind that Liberation licensing was a Red Hat, Inc decision,
> not
> a Fedora decision.
>
> Also, we haven't totally ignored the OFL, since it is listed as the
> "preferred" font license on the Fedora licensing page:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts
Wasn't the case when I wrote this :p
Many thanks,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
16 years
Reminder of meeting
by Tom Callaway
This is a reminder to all FPC members (including myself):
We will be meeting next Tuesday, November 20th, at 1700 UTC.
Thanks in advance,
~spot
16 years, 1 month
Unfinished business from last week's meeting
by Jason L Tibbitts III
We had an incomplete vote at the last meeting:
* Specifying the root directory for LTSP as /var/lib/ltsp
* Not yet accepted (4 - 0)
* Voting for: abadger1999 rdieter spot tibbs
Could other folks weigh in on this soon, so that I can pass this onto
FESCo?
Also, we decided that the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ServerProvides draft
should be pushed via the feature process, and FESCo had no issues with
this. However, my understanding is that Patrice does not want to do
that. If that's the case, we seem to be at an impasse. How do we
drive this issue forward?
- J<
16 years, 1 month
