Packaging guidelines for rubygems
by Jeroen van Meeuwen
Hi,
I find patching rubygems (for CVEs) a pain in the ass because of the
packaging guideline requirement to have the rubygem package's Source0 be
the actual gem.
I'd much rather work from tarballs.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
14 years, 6 months
%doc killing files installed below %_defaultdocdir
by Michael Schwendt
The scenario:
- tarball "make install" installs lots of documentation files in
%_defaultdocdir/%name-%version/
- package %files list uses %doc attributes to place its own
selection of files in our default docdir
=> all doc files from "make install" are lost, because
%doc fills %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version/ from scratch
In all earlier cases where applicable, I could convince the packager
to not use %doc and instead create proper %files entries to include
the files found in %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version/ -- as a bonus,
rpmbuild would fail for any file not included in %files.
For the first time, a packager insists on overwriting/killing the
installed files with his own conflicting %doc attributes.
Conclusion: It works but bears risks. It would silently kill any
additional documentation files built and installed by an upgrade, but not
added by the packager manually via %doc. It could also be that the %doc
statements create different subdirs (e.g. ./html/ versus placing the
html files directory in the pkg's docdir root) which might conflict
with paths compiled into an application.
What do other people think about this?
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/484933
14 years, 7 months
desktop filename
by Milos Jakubicek
Hi all,
what's the proper desktop filename? Is it just %{name}.desktop or
fedora-%{name}.desktop or it can be both?
Desktop-file-install creates fedora-%{name}.desktop, while the Review
Guidelines say it must be %{name}.desktop.
I mean either the Review Guidelines are wrong in this or
desktop-file-install should be fixed to follow the guidelines, what do
you think about it?
Regards,
Milos
14 years, 7 months
Packaging clarification regarding bash-completion scripts
by Michel Salim
One of my package, bti, now ships a bash-completion script, which
needs to be installed in /etc/bash_completion.d/ . It seems that the
expectation is that installing bash-completion should automagically
enable all applications that provide completion scripts, and so
existing packages should own /etc/bash_completion.d (rather than
depending on it).
Bearing that in mind,
1. Should this be included in the guidelines? Currently, none of the
use cases match: to guard against renaming, and if two unrelated
packages install files to a common directory
I'm proposing "3. Optional dependency. If your package has a
non-essential feature that is not significant enough to split off to a
separate subpackage, then you may choose not to Require: the package
needed for that feature, but instead own the relevant directories."
Are we still not allowing optional dependencies (suggests / recommends
/ hints)? Otherwise, for such features, the dependency should be
suggested rather than silently ignored.
2. Some packages install files in /etc/bash_completion.d without
either requiring bash-completion or owning the directory:
- darcs
- mercurial
Depending on how this is resolved, we'd need to open bugs against them
with the recommended solution.
Thanks,
--
miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/
IUCS • msalim(a)cs.indiana.edu
Fedora • salimma(a)fedoraproject.org
MacPorts • hircus(a)macports.org
14 years, 7 months
I wish to package some CC licensed content ...
by steve
Hi,
Most of my reading these days is done on my laptop[1]. This includes both tech
(docs and tutorial types) as well as non-tech books.
So, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw 'diveintopython' listed in my yum
search listings (I was searching for comic book readers).
I like the idea of being able to 'yum install' or 'yum search', or even 'yum
groupinsatall' books (or any CC content for that matter, eg: music, video
..etc). If packaging such content is encouraged, I'd gladly package most of the
CC content I've accumulated.
Does Fedora has a policy or guideline about these things ?
regards,
- steve
[1] I don't think the Kindle ...or any other dedicated ebook reader for that
matter, is worth the investment right now
PS: Since I just subscribed to this list to ask the question above, I might as
well also request someone to please review the following packages I've
submitted, and sponsor me if possible. They've been languishing for some time now:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478744
--
Linux Centric Marketplace: http://www.tuxcompatible.com
14 years, 7 months
Guidelines for waf usage?
by Christoph Wickert
Are there any guidelines, hints or whatever for using the waf build tool
in Fedora? A search in the wiki returns nothing and looking though some
specs I see they all handle way different.
Regards,
Christoph
14 years, 7 months
Update: PackageMaintainers wiki cleanup update
by Susan Lauber
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Susan Lauber
<laubersm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> Greetings to the authors/maintainers of Package Maintainer wiki pages,
>
> I introduced myself last week [1] and since then I have dug into the pages and set up a task table [2]
>
> I have already added a category to most pages so they can all be found together [3].
> If there are others or if you create a new page just add the string [[Category:Package Maintainers]] to the bottom of the page.
>
> The next step is renaming so that pages are easier to find in a search. It will also make the category page easier to use. I have started making suggested in the packagemaintainers.psv [4] file in the wikirename.git repo and
Update: Pages were moved this past weekend (20090222)
I also did a lot of work merging the old PackageMaintainers page into
the Category page itself. I think it is still too long but will
continue to clean it up this week. If I missed any redirects, please
let me know (or just fix them).
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers
The layout has
*old PackageMaintainers info at the top (maintained manually)
*Sub Categories (dynamically created list)
*Pages in the Category (synamically created list)
*Please do NOT include subdirs / in names going forward.
*All links to the old page names should redirect but going forward,
please try to use the new names.
*To add a page to the category add [[Category:Package_Maintainers]] to
the bottom of the page.
*To link to the category page from within another page use the syntax
[[:Category:Package_Maintainers]] (not the extra colon at the
beginning)
>
> ***I encourage others to check the proposed names and offer additional suggestions.***
>
> I would like to have this file ready for the wikibot by the end of the week (Feb 7).
> Lack of response will be seen as a vote of confidence :)
>
> Thanks,
> Susan
>
> [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg01545.html
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_tasks_for_Packaging_Guide_and_related...
> [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers
> [4] http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=wikirename.git;a=blob_plain;f=packagem...
> with naming instructions at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_structure
>
--
Susan Lauber, (RHCX, RHCA, RHCSS)
Lauber System Solutions, Inc.
http://www.laubersolutions.com
gpg: 15AC F794 A3D9 64D1 D9CE 4C26 EFC3 11C2 BFA1 0974
14 years, 7 months
%define => %global change accepted
by Toshio Kuratomi
This is an FYI to Guidelines authors past and future that FESCo and the
FPC approved the change to use %global instead of %define. I don't know
of anyplaces that should remain %define so I'm going to start changing
everyplace on the wiki that uses %define to %global. Someone stop me if
they know of an exception to this.
Also, Ville, we should change the spec templates in rpmdevtools to do
this as well. Would you like a bug report, patch, or you'll just take
care of that?
-Toshio
14 years, 7 months
