Packages approved without satisfied dependencies
by Vít Ondruch
Hi,
I see more often then I would like that some packages get pushed into
Fedora and immediately appears among broken dependencies, since they
were pushed into Fedora sooner then their dependencies.
So I propose to add one additional bullet into reviewer guidelines [1]:
"Package has to have satisfied all its dependencies prior it is approved."
Hopefully somebody will notice next time during review ....
Vít
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
9 years, 6 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-10-07 16:00 - 17:35 UTC) (unofficial pre-meeting started at 15:20 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by abadger1999 at 16:11:40 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-07/fedora-meeti...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* SCL Draft discussion (abadger1999, 16:11:50)
* approve the Retirement section of the SCL Draft (abadger1999,
16:42:23)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Guidelines_(draft)#SCL_Ret...
(abadger1999, 16:42:32)
* retirement section of SCL draft approved (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
(abadger1999, 16:46:33)
* filesystem location (abadger1999, 16:47:07)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-November/009728....
(abadger1999, 16:47:54)
* dots in version portion (abadger1999, 16:52:28)
* Agreed that the version portion of scl names must include dots.
(+1:5, 0:1, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:00:35)
* #352 BLAS and LAPACK packaging (abadger1999, 17:01:27)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/352 (abadger1999,
17:01:32)
* deferred BLAS LAPACK discussion waiting on spot's input
(abadger1999, 17:04:29)
* #355 How to package noarch packages which require a binary
dependency which doesn't build on all archs? (abadger1999, 17:04:40)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/355 (abadger1999,
17:04:45)
* ACTION: abadger1999 to write a draft based on the nodejs strategy
that also accounts for BuildRequires (abadger1999, 17:17:03)
* #357 time-api prior to openJDK8 (abadger1999, 17:22:28)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/248 (abadger1999,
17:25:36)
* General Guideline allowing Reverse Bundling for backwards compat
will finish voting in ticket (+1:4, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999,
17:39:47)
* Open Floor (abadger1999, 17:40:40)
Meeting ended at 18:36:19 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* abadger1999 to write a draft based on the nodejs strategy that also
accounts for BuildRequires
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* abadger1999
* abadger1999 to write a draft based on the nodejs strategy that also
accounts for BuildRequires
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* abadger1999 (198)
* RemiFedora (70)
* geppetto (65)
* tibbs|w (23)
* limburgher (13)
* racor (8)
* Rathann (6)
* zodbot (5)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
9 years, 6 months
Missing packages in bugzilla
by David Highley
We ran into an issue with the build of the llvm and clang compiler.
When we went to submit a bug report at bugzilla.redhat.com they were not
in the components list for Fedora.
We did create a report against a dormant package, but would like to get
the compiler components added to bugzilla so we can move the report to
the right place.
9 years, 6 months
Missing library symbolic links
by David Highley
We have noticed a growing trend of the final symbolic link not being
established for libraries. Since the linker auto name mangling breaks
because of this issue it causes the platform to be a problematic
development host. Either the system administrators have to go an
manually establish missing links or build process must be modified to
use full paths to library files. Neither of these solutions are
desirable. We are seeing this with RedHat Enterprise and other
distributions as well.
Question, how long do we think a distribution will be an acceptable
development hosting platform because of this issue? We think this maybe
due to disagreement over what version of a library should be the
default. Taking the current approach is not a good long term solution.
We believe the most current version should be the default and if a
package needs an older version then that package should have to
customize their installation.
This is not a flame, it is meant to be constructive.
9 years, 7 months
SCL in Fedora
by Marcela Mašláňová
Hi,
I can't attend the meeting this week. Also it seems to me IRC meeting is
not the best option for everyone. Not all of us can join in the evening
(or even worse night).
I add my comments to some question marks on Toshio's draft page. Current
draft is well written and should be usefull also for SCL beginners. My
biggest concern here is the naming propose. I don't want to create such
big incompatibility between downstreams. It would mean much more work
for all interested parties, maybe changes in scl-utils. I'm not sure why
it's needed in this format. Could someone elaborate?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Guidelines_%28draft%29#Nam...
Thanks,
Marcela
9 years, 7 months
scl_prefix vs _scl_prefix
by Toshio Kuratomi
Here's a relatively [ ;-) ] non-controversial change needed to the draft.
Right now we have both _scl_prefix and scl_prefix macros. We need to rename
one of those. Names that differ only in punctuation are confusing. It
looks like _scl_prefix is used less in the draft. So that's probably the
candidate to rename. Perhaps something like %{_scldir} to be similar to
%{_libdir}, %{_sysconfdir}, etc?
-Toshio
9 years, 7 months
SCL Easy questions: metapackage deps
by Toshio Kuratomi
In an attempt to get things done outside of the meeting :-)...
People seem to be telling me things about metapackage deps that aren't in
the draft. So something needs to be updated there.
Here's the puzzle pieces that I've been given:
metapackage example spec template:
* Main metapackage: Deps on some general scl packages
* SCL Runtime package: deps on scl-utils
* SCL build package: deps on scl-utils-build
metapackage section explanatory text:
* Main metapackage: The draft says the deps are "the packages essential to
this SCL." but I added that. Please tell me how to correct this if I am wrong.
* SCL build package: it says the dep on scl-utils-build is a should, not a must
mmaslano:
* The main metapackage requires scl-utils-build and the build package
requires the metapackage.
slavek:
* The runtime package must not dep on the main metapackage. That allows
people to install only a piece of the SCL.
* The main metapackage installs every general SCL package in the collection
as well as the SCL runtime package. (note that this conflicts with the
Remi|Fedora:
* main metapackage has an implicit dep on the -runtime package
* I finally see where this is implicit. Each general SCL package has an
explicit dep on the -runtime package. As long as the main SCL
metapackage has a dep on at least one general SCL package, the
metapackage will implicitly dep on -runtime. This took me long enough
to see that I'd lean toward making this explicit or documenting the
chain of reasoning in the explanatory text.
* the main package is just a metapackage which install most of the
collection.
geppetto:
* The Fedora SCL Guide documentation says the top level metapackage is
supposed to be minimal
: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Contributor_Documentation/1/ht...
toshio:
* Other packagers (not the scl maintainer) are going to want to create more
general scl packages that target an scl. Unless we are going to ban that
practice it will be hard for the scl metapackage to continuously update as
more general scl packages are added.
Here's the places that I see as needing to be clarified for me to continue
clarifying this section:
* What is the role of the metapackage? Does it aim to be complete or
minimal/essential/some smaller subset?
* Should the -runtime package *only* dep on scl-utils?
* Do we need to add both the dep chain from scl build package to main
metapackage and main metapackage to scl-utils-build or do we need to
simply make it explict that the SCL build package depends on
scl-utils-build?
-Toshio
9 years, 7 months
