February 2008 - packaging - Fedora Mailing-Lists

by Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams

I would like for the Packaging group to discuss the following policy: """ compat-* packages ----------------- compat-* packages are for the sole purpose of providing obsolescent/obsolete libraries required by non-Fedora applications. No Fedora packages may be built against them, and no application packages may use the compat- namespace. Any -devel subpackage must be omitted via the removal or exclusion of development-related files. """ This policy would not be enforced retroactively (although maintainer compliance should be welcomed). -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet(a)gmail.com> PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed

16 years, 2 months

5
9
0 / 0

Policy on packages whose source files require a login to download

by Orion Poplawski

Is there an explicit policy one way or the other on allowing packages whose upstream requires a login to download? My current package ncarg and its replacement (ncl) have moved to this. It seems that this is also the case with ksh as well. Kevin might be able to tell us if there are others. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

16 years, 2 months

4
4
0 / 0

java: building from source vs signed .jar's

by Rex Dieter

I've been approached by the dev's of a GPL'd java app (www.geogebra.org), wanting my assistance wrt rpm packaging (and eventual inclusion in fedora I hope), but there's a snag. They want (need) their java applet runable over the web (webstart'able), and that means signed jars. They proposed we simply package their prebuilt (and signed) .jars, but that is contrary to our usual "build from source" position. So, the dilemma is 1. come up with packaging policy and mechanism for fedora to produce signed jars. I raised this issue in the past, but we punted, since fedora, at the time, didn't include any java implementations that supported this. icedtea changes that. 2. allow an exception to the "build from source" guideline for pregenerated, signed .jar's. 3. just say no 4. insert suggestion here. ... 99. profit! -- Rex

16 years, 2 months

6
10
0 / 0

Duplication of documentation in subpackages

by Jason L Tibbitts III

I've seen a few packages which include things like a readme or license file in both the main package and one or more subpackages. The review guidelines are explicit that packages must not contain duplicate files in the %files listing, and generally these will abort a build, but in the case of %doc files this doesn't seem to be the case. I know spot has indicated in the past that there's no legal requirement to duplicate the license file between subpackages, even when they have names which don't relate them in any way to the main package. What I've never been sure of is whether it's something I need to block packages for. I guess if anyone is that concerned about saving space they can just do --nodocs installs. - J<

16 years, 2 months

4
5
0 / 0

OCaml "LGPLv2 with exceptions" - what should be in the License field?

by Richard W.M. Jones

Jason Tibbitts who has been kindly reviewing many of my packages raises a question about the License field for a common license for OCaml. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432482 The license starts with this preamble, and then continues with the ordinary LGPLv2. Note that this license is more permissive than the standard LGPL, so this is not a question about whether this is free software or not. <quote> This Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License version 2 (included below). As a special exception to the GNU Library General Public License, you may link, statically or dynamically, a "work that uses the Library" with a publicly distributed version of the Library to produce an executable file containing portions of the Library, and distribute that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the additional requirements listed in clause 6 of the GNU Library General Public License. By "a publicly distributed version of the Library", we mean either the unmodified Library as distributed by INRIA, or a modified version of the Library that is distributed under the conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU Library General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Library General Public License. </quote> Many OCaml libraries use a license like this because the relinking requirements described in LGPL make no sense for OCaml libraries. Rich. -- Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/ Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903

16 years, 2 months

3
2
0 / 0

Package naming help, please

by Timothy Selivanow

The way I interpreted the Package Naming Guidelines[1], the package I'm working on (pysvn) should be called python-svn. Is this not correct[2]? 1: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines 2: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428718#c11 --Tim ______________________________________________ < Beer -- it's not just for breakfast anymore. > ---------------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ /\ ( ) .( o ).

16 years, 2 months

4
4
0 / 0

alsa-plugins-a52 in Fedora 8?

by Justin

Hi, I'm sorry if this is not the right mailing list for this question. It seemed like the best fit for it. I have noticed the alsa package alsa-plugins-a52 seems to be missing in at least Fedora 8. Is this intentional? Is it possible to get this added? Thanks, Justin

16 years, 2 months

2
1
0 / 0

Ada packages

by Orion Poplawski

The latest release of plplot includes Ada bindings. The Ada development files are installed in: /usr/lib/ada/adalib/plplotadad/ (*.ali) and /usr/share/ada/adainclude/plplotadad/ (*.ads and *.adb) The PLplot project are following the recommendations made here: http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html Now, there are currently no packages in Fedora that provide /usr/lib/ada/adalib and /usr/share/ada/adainclude. gcc-gnat does provide /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.2/adainclude, but this is clearly for internal use. So, what package should provide these two directories? filesystem? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

16 years, 2 months

3
5
0 / 0

GGZ Draft guideline

by Rex Dieter

Here's a quicky draft I threw together: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/GGZ Already got feedback from ggz upstream, and is in use in rawhide's gnome-games, kdegames, freeciv packaging. One small thing to consider maybe: Change Requires(post,preun): ggz-client-libs to Requires(post,preun): %_bindir/ggz-config ends up being the same thing, so may not make much/any difference. -- Rex

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

python-svn build failed on koji

by Timothy Selivanow

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=403391 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428718 It looks like it is complaining about not being able to find the gssapi_krb5 library (libgssapi_krb5.so), which is part of krb5-devel. When I build it (manually) on my host after I remove krb5-devel (which also removes neon-devel and openssl-devel) it complains about needing neon-devel, which I then install neon-devel. neon-devel requires krb5-devel and openssl-devel (which *is* needed by python-svn to build), and it automatically installed when I `yum install neon-devel`. Does this not occur with koji? Do I need to specify *all* deps even though some of them are dep'd by other build deps? Also, I've been following <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join>, how exactly do I acquire a sponsor? Do I need to have this package build-able before I get a sponsor? Do I need a Fedora Account before/after a sponsor or the package is build-able? --Tim _______________________________________________________________________________ / Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. \ \ -- Mickey Mouse / ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ /\ ( ) .( o ).

16 years, 2 months

2
3
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging February 2008