packaging September 2009

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

35 participants
22 discussions

"Explicit requires" and "requiring base package"
by Ville Skyttä 09 Sep '09

09 Sep '09

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when absolutely necessary. [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually, subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. I think these two guidelines or their wording are more or less in conflict these days. Most -devel packages do not "absolutely necessarily" need an explicit dependency on the base package because rpm automatically adds soname dependencies from symlinks in -devel to the corresponding shared lib in the main/lib package. Ditto, many cases of other non-devel subpackages get automatic lib soname dependencies to the main/lib package. If the intent is to still require explicit deps like in "requiring base package" even though there are automatic ones that would usually work, just to be sure or for other reasons (possibility of compilation options, patchwork that affects some internal subpackages but not other -devel/lib package consumers), I think "requiring base packages" and "explicit requires" should be cross referenced noting that this is an exception and those explicit deps are indeed wanted. If not, IMO "requiring base package" should be softened so that it requires adding those explicit deps if no automatic ones are present, or just removed because that'd be redundant with "explicit requires" and the rest of the general dependency guidelines.

2 5

Processing Review Requests
by Shakthi Kannan 09 Sep '09

09 Sep '09

Hi, I would like to know: 1. If there is a comprehensive contact list of Fedora Packagers who are allowed to sponsor packages? Is the list available somewhere that new joinees can use, and contact Fedora packagers? or is it always that whenever a Sponsor looks into FE-NEEDSPONSOR review requests in bugzilla, the package is reviewed? 2. Is there a queue of review requests that is maintained, say, for example a review-request that has not been reviewed for a month, should be given first priority or is there any criteria as such? or is it left to the Packagers? 3. If there is a SIG, and exists a group of Packagers who can sponsor a package within the SIG, how do they coordinate as to which packages need to be reviewed first, or in what order? Appreciate any inputs in this regard, Thanks! SK -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

4 3

rpm build problem
by ram s 09 Sep '09

09 Sep '09

hi, i am creating rpm packaging. i got the following problem Processing files:troapplication-1.0.0-1 Processing files: troapplication-debuginfo-1.0.0-1 error: Could not open %files file /home/user/rpmbuild/BUILD/troapplication-1.0.0/debugfiles.list: No such file or directory RPM build errors: Could not open %files file /home/nco_user/rpmbuild/BUILD/NCOVMSOFTS-1.0.0/debugfiles.list: No such file or directory I created same package before and built it properly and create rpm biunary and can able to install. Any idea. thank you.

2 1

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting on Wednesday, September 8, 2009 (1600 UTC)
by Tom Callaway 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

Sorry for the late notice, but I'd like to have an FPC meeting tomorrow, usual time and place (#fedora-meeting). Here's a rough agenda for the next meeting: * Use the Better Source: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Use_Better_Source * Move SIGs/Games/Packaging to Packaging/Games: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=SIGs/Games/Packaging * Common Voice Data (update of SystemVoiceData): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CommonVoiceData Thanks in advance, ~spot

1 1

How to run own shell script from rpm spec
by ram s 06 Sep '09

06 Sep '09

Hi, I am creating on example.sh in my source folder and tar it and put it in /home/user/rpmbuild/SOURCES directory. In that example.sh, I am creating one directory in my tmp folder. But, when I run the spec file, it not execute the shell script and run the command. I am using %pre section to run that shell script. My spec file is, ****************************************************************** Summary: This Package install example daemon application Name: example Version:1 Release:5 License: CC-GNU GPL version 2.0 Group: Applications/System Source:example-1.tar.gz BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-root Requires: python = 2.2.3 Requires: gcc Requires(post): /bin/sh BuildRequires: libpcap BuildRequires: gawk BuildArch:x86_64 Packager:S.Jayaram %description This Package install CDaemon application %prep %setup -q %build %{__make} %pre sh example.sh sh javacheck.sh %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_tmppath} install -m755 example $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_tmppath}/example %makeinstall %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) #%dir /home/nco_user/rpmbuild/SOURCES/example-1 %{_bindir}/* %clean %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} *************************************************************** My script is, #!/bin/sh mkdir /home/nco_user/rpmbuild/tmp/CDaemon I am not able to run the script and create the folder. When I run rpmbuild , it run properly and create the binary. But when I installed it shows following error, [error] Preparing... ########################################### [100%] sh: example.sh: No such file or directory sh: javacheck.sh: No such file or directory error: %pre(example-1-5.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: install: %pre scriptlet failed (2), skipping example-1-5 //////////////////////////////////////////////////// what is my problem. I put my shell scripts in /home/user/rpmbuild/SOURCES/example-1/ directory and finally tar it. where can i call my own custom shell scripts. thank you.

2 1

Packaging a game, need help with setgid security
by Ryan Rix 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Hello group, I have recently finished packaging the game IVAN (http://ivan.sf.net) for Fedora 11: Iter Vehemens ad Necum is a graphical roguelike game. It features advanced bodypart and material handling, multi-colored lighting and, above all, deep gameplay. Like many roguelikes, it has a shared high score file and Bones files that all users are meant to have their scores and final data written to. As a result, the game is forced to run setgid games so that it has the rights to write to /var/games/ivan/. While packaging this application, I got a lot of help from some of the Fedora-KDE guys (hi Kevin, Ben) and they both suggested I run this through Fedora Security SIG so that the game would properly demote itself to non-setgid when it doesn't need to. What is the proper channel to go about this? Should I just mail to the security list? Should I put this package up for review beforehand/in the meantime? Thanks and Best, Ryan Rix -- Ryan Rix (623)-826-0051 Fortune: I'm DESPONDENT ... I hope there's something DEEP-FRIED under this miniature DOMED STADIUM ... http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://twitter.com/phrkonaleash XMPP: phrkonaleash(a)gmail.com | MSN: phrkonaleash(a)yahoo.com AIM: phrkonaleash | Yahoo: phrkonaleash IRC: PhrkOnLsh(a)irc.freenode.net/#srcedit,#teensonlinux,#plugaz and countless other FOSS channels.

3 8

RPM packaging for fedora 10 problem
by ram s 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

Hello all, sorry to ask questions again and again. I am new to rpm packaging. I am trying to create one RPM package for my daemon application in Fedora 10. daemon application contains , 1. daemon.c 2. daemon.h 3. list.c 4.list.h 5.makefile. So , I am just tar the daemon application as "daemon.tar.gz". I put this daemon.tar.gz in /home/user/rpmbuild/SOURCES directory. I am creating spec filr and put it in /home/user/rpmbuild/SPECS directory. Now, I am trying to create binary RPM for my application. I am in x86_64 architecture. when I run *rpmbuild -bs daemon-1.spec* and then *rpmbuild -bb daemon-1.spec* only source rpm created. Binary RPM is not created. How to cretae binary RPM for my application. If my spec file is wrong, please correct me. I create .rpmmacros in my home director (/home/user/). MY spec file is, [SPEC] Summary: This Package install Daemon application Name: daemon Version:1 Release:1 License: GPL Group: Applications/System Source:daemon.tar.gz BuildRoot: /home/nco_user/rpmbuild/tmp BuildArch:noarch Packager:S.J.Ram %description This Package install Daemon application %prep %setup -q %build make %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT make install %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_tmppath}/daemon [/SPEC] please guide me to create binary rpm. Do I need to change SPEC file?. If any one already did RPM package for their C or java application, please give me the example (with one tar.gz file) thank you.

3 2

AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering comments
by Ville Skyttä 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

A couple of comments to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFilter… 1) Usage I suggest changing "MUST only be used with packages which meet the following criteria:" to "MUST only be used with packages which meet one of the following criteria:" as both can't be satisifed by any package. 2) Compatibility A note/tip about older/other distro (e.g. EPEL) compatibility would be nice so applying this stuff wouldn't require specfile forking or fragile distro/version checks. For example wrapping stuff in %{?filter_setup: ...} works (i.e. gets bypassed when not available), e.g. like: %{?filter_setup: %filter_provides_in /some/path %filter_setup}

1 1

Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
by Bill Nottingham 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com) said: > >> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to > >> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base > >> filesystem package. > > > > Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the > > matter. > > > Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for > packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft Comments? Bill

6 6

Need access to a PPC machine to debug LLVM/pure self-test issues
by Michel Alexandre Salim 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Hi, I'm currently packaging pure, and there are some issues on several architectures (Rawhide/x86_64 and ppc on any Fedora release). The upstream developer is interested in getting the issues fixed, and while I can help debug the x86_64 issues, PPC would really require access to a PPC machine. Does anyone have access to such a machine that they can provide an SSH login for? There might be some rather heavy-duty compilation involved at the beginning (experimenting with LLVM build options) but after that it's a matter of building a small-ish package, pure, against it. Kevin Fenzi gave me access several months ago, IIRC, but it has expired by now (and anyway, it was for my public key, not the developer's). Upstream issue being tracked here; http://code.google.com/p/pure-lang/issues/detail?id=13 Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim

2 2

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging September 2009