February 2010 - packaging - Fedora Mailing-Lists

RFC: /var/cache/<pkg> should be deleted upon package removal

by Ralf Corsepius

Hi, The FHS describes the purpose of /var/cache as follows [1]: <cite> /var/cache : Application cache data Purpose /var/cache is intended for cached data from applications. Such data is locally generated as a result of time-consuming I/O or calculation. The application must be able to regenerate or restore the data. Unlike /var/spool, the cached files can be deleted without data loss. The data must remain valid between invocations of the application and rebooting the system. Files located under /var/cache may be expired in an application specific manner, by the system administrator, or both. The application must always be able to recover from manual deletion of these files (generally because of a disk space shortage). No other requirements are made on the data format of the cache directories. </cite> From this, I conclude that it should be "safe by definition" to remove /var/cache/<dir> directories and/or files below such directories upon final package removal. ATM, none of the packages in Fedora using /var/cache/<dir> (e.g. yum, mock, abrt) does so. This leads to /var/cache/ gradually filling up with orphaned/unused files, e.g. when temporarily installing mock or abrt. Thoughts? Ralf [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARCACHEAPPLICATIONCACHEDATA

14 years, 2 months

2
1
0 / 0

RPM builds and Vendor tag

by Greg_Wilson＠aotx.uscourts.gov

I'm looking for some direction on using the vendor tag in RPMs that my organization is re-rolling. From: Maximum RPM: Taking the Red Hat Package Manager to the Limit The vendor Tag The vendor tag is used to define the name of the entity that is responsible for packaging the software. Normally, this would be the name of an organization. Here's an example: Vendor: White Socks Software, Inc. My question is, that if I simple re-roll the RPM to change the dist tag (no spec file changes or install changes); should I also change the vendor tag to my organization? Greg Wilson Information Technology Specialist Systems Deployment and Support Division

14 years, 2 months

7
6
0 / 0

Custom content within -debuginfo packages for gdb archer

by David Malcolm

As part of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/EasierPythonDebugging I needed to drop a python file into the location where gdb 7 can autoload it (same absolute path as the ELF file with a -gdb.py suffix) I didn't know of a way to add custom content to the debuginfo package, so I first tried putting the file here: /usr/lib{64}/libpython2.6.so.1.0-gdb.py but doing so generated lots of noise from ldconfig of the form: "/usr/lib/libpython2.6.so.1.0-gdb.py is not an ELF file - it has the wrong magic bytes at the start." (I filed this as bug 562980) Given that these .py files are only really usable when the .debug files are available (they use the DWARF debug data), I tried putting them into /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib{64}/libpython2.6.so.1.0.debug-gdb.py (note that the debug path is /usr/lib/debug for both 32/64 bit) and it turned out that doing so adds the .py file to the debuginfo subpackage. Digging into this, my reading is that /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros defines %__debug_package to use "debugfiles.list", and it appears that /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh adds everything below /usr/lib/debug (and /usr/src/debug) this file (via "LISTFILES"). Hence by installing the .py file below /usr/lib/debug it seems to ensure that it is added to the -debuginfo subpackage (if it doesn't, then the rpmbuild ought to fail since the debug-gdb.py payload file would be unpackaged) How sane is this? It seems to work, sidesteps the ldconfig issue, and the end result seems like the right result, but the method feels a little like a hack; I stumbled on this by accident. Is this a reasonable thing to do going forward? can this be supported in rpm? (please!) Arguably I may need to ensure the files get byte-compiled as well (using the same version of python as gdb is linked against). Dave

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

httpd RPM --with-included-apr configure option

by vivekanandan nataraj

Hi All, I am trying create an httpd RPM package with " --with-included-apr " configuration option. I had just removed the " --with-apr " and " --with-apr-util " configuration options and added the " --with-included-apr " option. But I am seriously worrying about the following lines in the httpd.spec file. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- *# forcibly prevent use of bundled apr, apr-util, pcre* rm -rf srclib/{apr,apr-util,pcre} ----------------------------------------------------- Please share your ideas or suggestions... Regards Vivek

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

update-alternatives (and other such pre/post scripts) in multi-arch

by Daniel Piddock

Hi, I'm trying to create a multi-arch package that uses update-alternatives. I followed the spec on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives but this falls apart when uninstalling a package in a multi-arch system, when the partner package is also installed e.g. removing the i686 when the x86_64 is installed. $1=1 to %postun, like it was a simple upgrade. java-1.6.0-openjdk appears to be one example of a package suffering this problem. Using $1 for other tasks in multi-arch packages gets just as messy. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=340391 is an open bug about this issue with a history tracking back to 2004 that has received little attention. Is there any clean or possible way to get this to work? Or just hope users don't uninstall and notice that alternatives now contains stale data? Thank you, Dan Piddock -- System Administrator, CoreFiling Ltd http://www.corefiling.com

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

Python Guidelines Vote

by Toshio Kuratomi

From the summary for today's meeting: """ The committee started voting on new Guidelines for python modules that includes Guidelines for python3 but suffered network difficulties in the middle of the discussion. This will ocntinue on the packaging mailing list and hopefully be voted on later this week. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python3 Current state: For: 3 rdieter, tibbs, abadger1999 Against: 1 racor racor wants to have a note in the guidelines of when the python-2.x package will be removed from Fedora. Other committee members argued that this was 1) out of scope for the FPC (would be a packagr or FESCo decision) and 2) impossible to know at this juncture as the uptake of python3 among module authors is not yet very high -- that leads to no one being able to port because their dependencies have not been ported. """ Logs of this portion are at: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-02-03/fedora-meeting... I'd like to have the vote continued, here on the mailing list to see if we can either get the 5 +1's we need or dig up issues that must be addressed. There is a Fedora 13 Feature that depends on this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Python3F13 We should at least have some idea of whether there's large remaining problems to be worked out in the Guidelines for Feature Freeze (Tues next week). hansg was a +1 provided no big problems were brought up but couldn't be present for the discussion. Hans, are you still +1 after racor's objection? limburgher, sorry we couldn't resolve you being able to speak in channel until after the meeting. Care to cast your vote? rathann, SmootherFrOgZ, spot, your votes would also be appreciated. -Toshio

14 years, 2 months

4
3
0 / 0

CMPI plugins proposal

by Matt Domsch

Please add to some future agenda to look at this draft for CIM Provider CMPI Plugins. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CMPIPlugins This is in regard to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468400 Also, please update https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Committee with the new packaging(a)lists.fp.o address. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux

14 years, 2 months

2
1
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging February 2010