jquery bundling for new packages
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen
TIL that there are around a thousand packages
in Fedora that include a file named jquery.js... [1]
Anyway it is good to see efforts to tackle these kinds of problems
with the Javascript and Web Assets Guidelines. :)
I want to ask if the packaging of grunt and jquery
blocks current package reviews of packages that bundle jquery.js?
Or can they proceed for now until jquery is actually packaged in Fedora?
Jens
ps It is going to be a long cleanup process to fix all those packages with bundled files.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets#Web_application_packagers
9 years, 3 months
Use of %__isa_bits should be mandatory
by Marcin Juszkiewicz
Hi
I am working on porting Fedora for AArch64 architecture. This means
patching many packages and during that time I noticed lot of checks for
32/64-bit architectures.
Most common one is:
%global something 32
%ifarch x86_64 ppc64 s390
%global something 64
%endif
Which can be now replaced to simple:
%global something %{__isa_bits}
And this works fine in Fedora 19 and beyond (including RHEL 7). There
are also some other variations of 32/64-bit checks which could be converted.
Can use of %__isa_bits be somehow announced/suggested to developers?
Would cut amount of patching needed for each new architecture.
9 years, 4 months
kickstart group list
by J's Mail
I'm not sure this is the right forum for raising this topic. If not,
please point me in a better direction.
kickstart honors package groups; these are defined in
'repodata/*comps.xml' on the cdrom. Yum has the concept of groups;
groups are defined in repos. It makes sense to me that they'd be the
same but they're not.
I would think that the right thing to do is to, at distribution
release time, export the groups honored by the official repo into the
kickstart comps.xml file.
To grandfather in existing configurations, an effort should be made to
implement existing kickstart group names into the official repository.
9 years, 5 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-12-19 17:00 - 18:30 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by abadger1999 at 17:02:09 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-19/fpc.2013-12-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Next Meeting (abadger1999, 17:04:34)
* Next meeting will be January 9, 2014 (abadger1999, 17:06:38)
* #374 Ada guidelines changes for Comfignat and runpaths (abadger1999,
17:12:00)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/374 (abadger1999,
17:12:11)
* Rombobeorn is going to do some testing of check-rpaths and add
running that to the proposal (abadger1999, 17:41:59)
* #358 Please make some autotools guidelines. (abadger1999,
17:42:27)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/358 (abadger1999,
17:42:37)
* #369 Guidance on dealing with the bundled libev in perl-EV
(abadger1999, 17:44:23)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/369 (abadger1999,
17:44:34)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/369#comment:5
(abadger1999, 17:45:13)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/337 (abadger1999,
17:55:34)
* 337 Guidelines needed for header only libraries (abadger1999,
18:09:10)
* header only libraries draft passes with a modification to require
such packages to be arch'd (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999,
18:09:47)
* #369 Guidance on dealing with the bundled libev in perl-EV
(abadger1999, 18:10:00)
* #375 Update to the Addon Packages naming guidelines for Python 3
Modules (abadger1999, 18:11:24)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/375 (abadger1999,
18:11:31)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/376 (abadger1999,
18:26:28)
* 376 Make a clarification about the use of %{__python2} in epel, in the
guidelines. (abadger1999, 18:26:37)
* Proposal to add information on macros for epel5 to the python
guidelines page approved (+:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 18:33:37)
* Open Floor (abadger1999, 18:33:42)
Meeting ended at 18:34:21 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* abadger1999 (119)
* geppetto (34)
* Rathann (22)
* limburgher (20)
* Rombobeorn (16)
* racor (12)
* RemiFedora (10)
* zodbot (6)
* tibbs|w (6)
* SmootherFrOgZ (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
9 years, 5 months
Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-12-19 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2013-12-19 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2013-12-19 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST
2013-12-19 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST
2013-12-19 17:00 Thu UTC <-
2013-12-19 17:00 Thu Europe/London <-
2013-12-19 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CET
2013-12-19 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CET
2013-12-19 22:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST
------------------new day----------------------
2013-12-20 01:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT
2013-12-20 01:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT
2013-12-20 02:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST
2013-12-20 03:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12
= Followups =
(approval and retirement sections already passed,
nothing to discuss this week)
#topic #339 software collections in Fedora
.fpc 339
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339
(probably deferred)
#topic #358 Please make some autotools guidelines.
.fpc 358
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/358
#topic #369 Guidance on dealing with the bundled libev in perl-EV
.fpc 369
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/369
= New business =
#topic #375 Update to the Addon Packages naming guidelines for Python 3
Modules
.fpc 375
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/375
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
report of the agenda items can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until
the following meeting.
9 years, 5 months
problem with separate doc packages
by Pavel Zhukov
Hi packagers,
If you have package with separate -doc subpackage and the subpackage
contains files
from %{buildroot} (compiled documentation or so on) you're probably
interesting in.
For some reasons (I *think* it is a regression after last switching to
unversioned docs)
rpm packages doc directory twice without any reasons (and does it even
if main package doesn't contain any references to
%doc or %{_docdir} at all!)
I've raised the bug today:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044738.
--
Pavel
9 years, 5 months
-javadoc and -doc packages with Requires
by Michael Schwendt
I've run into -doc noarch packages that cannot be installed without
pulling in a long chain of dependencies.
I've thought it is widely accepted practice since Fedora Extras that
documentation packages may be installed independently, i.e. without having
to install an application and all its deps. Especially if the documentation
can be displayed with any browser or viewer. It is convenient if one can
install/remove Documentation packages without any dependencies.
It could be that packagers apply the "Requiring Base Package" guidelines
to -doc subpackages, because the "Documentation" guidelines don't recommend
otherwise:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
Can we please agree on keeping -doc packages free of dependencies unless
the documentation is in a custom format specific to an application? (such
as preprocessed+compressed instead of plain HTML, PDF, TXT)
[...]
What about "-javadoc" packages? Generated HTML documentation in noarch
packages that may be displayed with any HTML viewer.
Here it seems packagers add a dependency on "jpackage-utils" only to
pull in dependencies that own the /usr/share/javadoc directory. It's
not jpackage-utils but javapackages-tools that owns it.
# repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/javadoc
javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch
javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch
# repoquery --whatrequires javapackages-tools|wc -l
2559
# repoquery --whatrequires jpackage-utils|wc -l
2557
As a result, one cannot install -javadoc packages without having to
install dependencies.
Why is it like that? Just to apply the "BuildRequires and Requires"
guidelines for Java packages also to -javadoc packages?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
Could we relax the Java packaging guidelines for -javadoc packages, please?
9 years, 5 months
problem with fedora-review
by Martin Gansser
Hi,
I have a problem with fedora-review when checking a package on my local drive with:
http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-5.fc19.s...
fedora-review --define DISTTAG=fc21 -p -r -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-5.fc20.src.rpm
INFO: Processing local files: /home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-5.fc20.src.rpm
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS
INFO: --> SRPM url: file:///home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-5.fc20.src.rpm
INFO: Using review directory: /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/nuvolaplayer
WARNING: Package nuvolaplayer not built
INFO: Using disttag from DISTTAG flag.
ERROR: Exception down the road...(logs in /home/martin/.cache/fedora-review.log)
the content of the log file is:
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG fedora-review 0.5.0 920221d 2013-08-30 11:27:49 +0200 started
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG Command line: /usr/bin/fedora-review --define DISTTAG=fc21 -p -r -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n /home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-5.fc20.src.rpm
12-13 13:28 root INFO Processing local files: /home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-5.fc20.src.rpm
12-13 13:28 root INFO Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG Active settings after processing options
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG resultdir: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG verbose: False
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG no_report: False
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG session_log: /home/martin/.cache/fedora-review.log
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG list_flags: False
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG list_checks: False
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG single: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG rpm_spec: True
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG plugins: {}
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG exclude: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG configdir: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG log_level: 20
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG init_done: True
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG cache: False
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG mock_config: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG version: False
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG uniqueext: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG flags: ['DISTTAG=fc21']
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG bz_url: https://bugzilla.redhat.com
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG mock_options: --no-cleanup-after --no-clean
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG list_plugins: False
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG _log_config_done: True
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG other_bz: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG plugins_arg: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG repo: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG use_colors: True
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG bug: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG prebuilt: True
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG name: /home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-5.fc20.src.rpm
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG url: None
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG checksum: sha256
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG nobuild: False
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG _con_handler: <logging.StreamHandler object at 0x7fc57c35a710>
12-13 13:28 root INFO --> SRPM url: file:///home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-5.fc20.src.rpm
12-13 13:28 root INFO Using review directory: /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/nuvolaplayer
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG find_urls completed: 0.035
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG Avoiding init of working mock root
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG Url download completed: 0.387
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG Skipping CheckBundledJars in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/java.pyc, deprecated by java-check-bundled-jars in /usr/share/fedora-review/scripts/java-check-bundled-jars.sh
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG Skipping CheckExcludeArch in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/generic.pyc, deprecated by check-excludearch in /usr/share/fedora-review/scripts/check-excludearch.sh
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG Skipping CheckLargeDocs in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/generic.pyc, deprecated by check-large-docs in /usr/share/fedora-review/scripts/check-large-docs.sh
12-13 13:28 root WARNING Package nuvolaplayer not built
12-13 13:28 root INFO Using disttag from DISTTAG flag.
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG Exception down the road...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 215, in run
self._do_run(outfile)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 205, in _do_run
self._do_report(outfile)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 90, in _do_report
self._run_checks(self.bug.spec_file, self.bug.srpm_file, outfile)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 99, in _run_checks
self.checks = Checks(spec, srpm)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 314, in __init__
self.spec = SpecFile(spec_file, self.flags)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/spec_file.py", line 72, in __init__
update_macros()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/spec_file.py", line 56, in update_macros
expanded = Mock.get_macro(macro, self, flags)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/mock.py", line 339, in get_macro
self._macros = self._get_prebuilt_macros(spec, flags)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/mock.py", line 143, in _get_prebuilt_macros
buildarch, macros = _add_buildarch_macros(macros, paths)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/mock.py", line 101, in _add_buildarch_macros
buildarch = [a for a in arches if not a is 'noarch'][0]
IndexError: list index out of range
12-13 13:28 root ERROR Exception down the road...(logs in /home/martin/.cache/fedora-review.log)
12-13 13:28 root DEBUG Report completed: 0.576 seconds
any help ?
9 years, 5 months
