Architecture dependencies
by fsosson＠gmail.com
Hello,
I'm using RPM 4.4 and I would like my package installs
"glibc-devel.i386" and "glibc-devel.x86_64" as requires dependencies.
Could someone explain howto do that?
Thank you in advance,
theOtherOone
12 years, 7 months
New octave packaging guidelines/templates/macros
by Orion Poplawski
I have updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Octave
with a new proposal for packaging octave packages. This will need to
get underway soon as the monolithic octave-forge package is now
effectively dead and individual packages will need to go through package
review.
I have not yet added the macros to the octave package and would like
comments on those first before I add them.
I still need to do much more testing of the packages, hopefully next
week. One question I have is how the Obsoletes should be handled.
octave-forge currently provides the individual version names that the
octave packages should be named, but I'm not sure how we need to handle
removing the octave-forge package. Do the individual packages obsolete
octave-forge as the templates show?
Thanks!
- Orion
12 years, 7 months
How can packages require a pre-release version?
by Christopher Aillon
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Vers...
So, this has been a problem for a while for me, but I'm just now getting
to bring it up...
Basically, packages need to be able to require "xulrunner 2.0 beta 11"
but that's impossible with the current guidelines...
Essentially, the number that gets incremented is _before_ the
pre-release, and unfortunately there's no time machine available to
determine how many increments will occur before the next tarball update,
so packages can't do
Require: xulrunner > 2.0-0.19.beta11.fc15
Require: xulrunner < 2.0-0.22.beta12.fc15
since we might just go straight to 2.0-0.20.beta12.fc15 or we might need
20 rebuilds of beta 11. And depending on the specific NVR is suboptimal
too.
What I want to do for the XULRunner case specifically is change it to:
xulrunner-2.0-0.0.beta11_1.fc15 // first instance of beta 11
xulrunner-2.0-0.0.beta11_2.fc15 // rebuild of beta 11
xulrunner-2.0-0.0.beta11_3.fc15 // another rebuild
xulrunner-2.0-0.0.beta12_1.fc15 // first instance of beta 12
xulrunner-2.0-0.0.scm20110209_1.fc15 // scm snap from Feb 9 2011
xulrunner-2.0-0.1.beta13_1.fc15 // first instance of beta 13
So, the first 0 would signify a pre-release, the second 0 would be used
as sort of a "prerelease epoch" if needed as shown above, and it would
be followed by the pre-name, and then a release. Normally, a hyphen
would precede the rpm release of a tarball, but we can't have that here
due to the fact that we're putting some of the version information in
the release, so I think underscore works just as well here, and is
better than a dot.
This would allow packages to do things like
Require: xulrunner >= 2.0-0.0.beta11
Require: xulrunner <= 2.0-0.0.beta12
Thoughts?
(Note: since we're currently at -0.19... in rawhide, I'd of course start
with 0.20 for this round of pre-releases, but would start with 0.0 for
the next set of pre-releases)
12 years, 7 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Mamoru Tasaka
Tom Callaway wrote, at 02/05/2011 02:18 AM +9:00:
>
> In some situations, this is not a problem, but there are some situations
> where it does matter:
>
> * A library that is explicitly Required (example a dlopen'd library)
> * The dependency from one -devel packages that is not noarch to
> another -devel package.
> * A non-noarch subpackage's dependency on its main package or another
> subpackage (e.g., libfoo-devel depends on libfoo, or fooapp-plugins
> depends on foo-app).
>
> The Packaging Guidelines (and Naming Guidelines) have been amended to
> reflect that %{?_isa} must be used for Explicit Requires and Provides
> that match those situations.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Frepl...
>
So
- Does this mean that mass packaging change will occur?
- Currently rpmbuild detects pkgconfig .pc dependencies, so for -devel
packages containing pkgconfig .pc file now we usually don't have write
dependency for another -devel subpackage like "Requires: foo-devel"
explicitly (as rpmbuild automatically adds "Requires: pkgconfig(foo)")
(and I guess we shouldn't write such explicit requires when possible
and let rpmbuild handle such dependencies automatically)
If dependencies between (non-arch) -devel packages must be changed to
explicit arch-specific, it means that rpmbuild should also be changed
to add arch-specific pkgconfig Provides / Requires (e.g.
pkgconfig(x11)(x86-64) instead of current pkgconfig(x11)) ?
- And as far as I am correct this also applies to other virtual Provdes/Requires
rpmbuild will automatically add.
- For example perl(BDB) devendency on perl-Coro.x86_64 will be satisfied by
perl-BDB.i686? Then this type of all virtual provides / requires rpmbuild
will handle must be changed??
Unless I am wrong to make things consistent such changes on rpmbuild must
be required. However is this actually we want?
Regards,
Mamoru
12 years, 7 months
About BuildRoot tag
by Sergio Belkin
Hi,
I've read in Packaging Guidelines that:
"Fedora (as of F-10) does not require the presence of the BuildRoot
tag in the spec and if one is defined it will be ignored. The provided
buildroot will automatically be cleaned before commands in %install
are called."
However if I run rpmdev-newspec myprog.spec it creates the tag:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
So what is the right approach about it?
Thanks in advance!
--
--
Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com
Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com
LPIC-2 Certified
12 years, 7 months
installing an icon to the desktop?
by Erik Blankinship
Using a .desktop file in my rpm, I have successfully put my gui software
into the gnome application menu.
I am wondering if there is a way to also put the icon onto the gnome desktop
when installing the rpm?
12 years, 7 months
