August 2013 - packaging - Fedora mailing-lists

arched BuildRequires?
by Björn Esser 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

Hi there! I have a question about this review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889261 Is it ok to havearched BuildRequires? In my opinion they should NOT be arched, because of the reasons given in the comments of the bug. Cheers, Björn

11 29

guidelines for go?
by Matthew Miller 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

I've been asked to help package / review a project written in Go. Since the language is new, we don't have packaging guidelines (unless I've missed them!), and I'm a Go newbie myself, so I'm left with some questions. The first question I have is over the location of packages -- the library modules. The ones that are part of golang are under %{_libdir}/golang/src/pkg. Should third-party packages go alongside, or % elsewhere? Also it appears that Go programs compiled with the canonical golang are statically linked (http://golang.org/doc/faq#Why_is_my_trivial_program_such_a_large_binary) Gccgo supports dynamic linking, but I'm not sure about compatibility issues. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>

3 13

Naming policy for adding language translation packages
by Parag Nemade 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Hi, I see that we are getting more and more translations packages in Fedora and those can be installed now via yum-langpacks plugin. I found that these packages are not following uniqueness in their naming. e.g. If I look into Russian language translation packages then we have real fedora package names as tesseract-langpack-rus kde-l10n-Russian libreoffice-langpack-ru childsplay-alphabet_sounds_ru My suggestion is we should have some naming guidelines like use language codes for language translation packages e.g. for Russian language your package should end with "-ru" only. We should have some uniqueness in package names. Regards, Parag.

3 4

Error in the systemd scriptlet snippets
by Aurelien Bompard 30 Aug '13

30 Aug '13

Hi packagers, I just realized there's a mistake in the ScriptletsSnippets page about the new systemd macros: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Macroized_script… The page asks to add "Requires: systemd", but the macros are actually expanded at build time and not at run time, thus it should simply be a single "BuildRequires: systemd" line. Example of the scriptlets when built without systemd: # rpm -q --scripts mailman3 preinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): [...] postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): %systemd_post mailman3.service preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): %systemd_preun mailman3.service postuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): %systemd_postun_with_restart mailman3.service And I install time I get: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FtLPUV: line 1: fg: no job control warning: %post(mailman3-3.0.0-0.6.bzr7218.fc19.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 Non-fatal POSTIN scriptlet failure in rpm package mailman3-3.0.0-0.6.bzr7218.fc19.noarch obviously because the "%" sign is interpreted as the job control command. When built with systemd, the scriptlets look correct: $ rpm -qp --scripts mailman3-3.0.0-0.6.bzr7220.fc19.noarch.rpm preinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): [...] postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then # Initial installation /usr/bin/systemctl preset mailman3.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : fi preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): [...] (expanded too) postuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): [...] (expanded too) This is on F19. Can you confirm that the wiki page should be fixed? Thanks. Aurélien -- http://aurelien.bompard.org ~~~~~~ xmpp:aurelien@bompard.org "I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this." -- Emo Phillips

3 2

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-08-29 16:00 - 17:42 UTC)
by James Antill 29 Aug '13

29 Aug '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 16:00:27 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-08-29/fpc.2013-08-29… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 16:00:37) * Consider reverting decision to ban %{?_isa} in BuildRequires - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/303 (spot, 16:03:52) * ACTION: tabled, pending data around rpmbuild (spot, 16:49:56) * No_bin_deps redux - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/314 (spot, 16:50:22) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Effect_of_UsrMove â €¦ doesn't seem that bad. (geppetto, 16:56:59) * ACTION: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Effect_of_UsrMove approved as replacement for ban on /bin /sbin /lib* files. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 17:04:38) * Bundling exception for IQmol - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/332 (spot, 17:07:41) * ACTION: Request for library generation from upstream before considering copylib exception approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 17:20:24) * Create a macro for selecting the proper ruby-(abi|release) version - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/334 (spot, 17:21:15) * ACTION: tabling on RHEL adding support for the macro. (spot, 17:37:58) Meeting ended at 17:42:47 UTC. Action Items ------------ * tabled, pending data around rpmbuild * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Effect_of_UsrMove approved as replacement for ban on /bin /sbin /lib* files. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Request for library generation from upstream before considering copylib exception approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * tabling on RHEL adding support for the macro. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * tabled, pending data around rpmbuild * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Effect_of_UsrMove approved as replacement for ban on /bin /sbin /lib* files. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Request for library generation from upstream before considering copylib exception approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * tabling on RHEL adding support for the macro. People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (139) * abadger1999 (95) * geppetto (32) * RemiFedora (27) * dgilmore (22) * Smoother1rOgZ (14) * samkottler (13) * racor (8) * limburgher (7) * zodbot (3) * kalev (3) * dwa (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-08-29 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 29 Aug '13

29 Aug '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-08-29 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-08-29 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2013-08-29 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2013-08-29 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-08-29 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2013-08-29 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2013-08-29 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2013-08-29 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-08-30 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2013-08-30 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2013-08-30 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2013-08-30 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = Followups = #topic #332 Bundling exception for IQmol .fpc 332 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/332 = New business = #topic #334 Create a macro for selecting the proper ruby-(abi|release) version .fpc 334 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/334 #topic #336 Please clarify the General Naming Guidelines for packages .fpc 336 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/336 #topic #337 Guidelines needed for header only libraries .fpc 337 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/337 #topic #338 %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts .fpc 338 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 #topic #339 software collections in Fedora .fpc 339 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 #topic #340 Bundling exception for nodeunit .fpc 340 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/340 = 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.

3 2

What A Wonderful World
by poma 28 Aug '13

28 Aug '13

I see trees of green, red roses too. I see them bloom, for me and you. And I think to myself, what a wonderful world. I see skies of blue, And clouds of white. The bright blessed day, The dark sacred night. And I think to myself, What a wonderful world. The colors of the rainbow, So pretty in the sky. Are also on the faces, Of people going by, I see friends shaking hands. Saying, "How do you do?" They're really saying, "I love you". I hear babies cry, I watch them grow, They'll learn much more, Than I'll ever know. And I think to myself, What a wonderful world. Yes, I think to myself, What a wonderful world. Oh yeah. poma

3 4

Dear Fedora Packagers!
by Michael Schwendt 28 Aug '13

28 Aug '13

Dear Fedora Packagers, when renaming a package, _please_ verify that the Obsoletes tag you add to a package specifies a high enough version. Make sure the new package really replaces the last published build of the old package. Pay extra attention to our dist tag. It is part of the Release value. If the last build is something-1.0-4.fc17 you need to Obsoletes: something < 1.0-5 because 4.fc17 is higher than 4 but lower than 5. Don't ignore the dist tag. Be extra careful when the renamed package needs to be retired. Until it's retired, it may be rebuilt/updated with a bumped Release value, and your Obsoletes tag would not be high anymore. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Ex… * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Thanks for your interest. It is a reoccuring problem that both the rename request submitter *and* the reviewer get the Obsoletes tags wrong. -- Michael Schwendt Fedora release 20 (Null) - Linux 3.11.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc20.x86_64 loadavg: 0.36 0.21 0.15

1 0

LightDM patches mop up
by poma 27 Aug '13

27 Aug '13

A patch for da patch in da attach, provided. :) poma

1 1

Merging freediams into freemedforms
by Ankur Sinha 25 Aug '13

25 Aug '13

Hi, I maintain two packages for the fedora-medical SIG that fall under the "freemedforms[1]" project. At the moment, these are packaged separately: 1. freemedforms[2]: provides freemedforms-emr and pulls in freediams 2. freediams[3] Now, freemedforms-emr and freediams are both built from the same source, and use the same internal libraries. Currently, I first build freemedforms-emr and the common libraries (spec[4]) and then build freediams (spec[5]), pointing to these libraries. Recently, with the 0.9.0-beta1 release, upstream sent me a new spec and suggested I use one spec to build both freedmedforms and freediams, and provide freediams as a subpackage. I've built freemedforms already, and I'm in the process of updating freediams now. I think it's a good idea, since they'll always move hand in hand. The build process will be simpler, and so will maintaining the package and updates. What do you folks think? Should I go ahead and retire(obsolete) freediams and provide it as a subpackage in freemedforms? I don't see any issues with this, but wanted to consult you folks to be sure before I go ahead and make the changes. [1] http://freemedforms.com/en/start [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/freemedforms [3] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/freediams [4] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/freemedforms.git/tree/freemedforms.spec [5] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/freediams.git/tree/freediams.spec -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

2 2

RFC: Explicit Requires without comments
by Michael Schwendt 25 Aug '13

25 Aug '13

Hello everyone! Can we please enhance the packaging guidelines and request packagers to add comments to explicit Requires more often than not? Explicit Requires on package names are fragile. The contents of the required package may move to a different (sub)package. Uncommented Requires don't give a hint about why they have been added and what inside a package is needed (with obvious exceptions, such as one Python based package requiring another Python based package). What inside a package is required? An executable? A directory? A datadir? A DBus service? JavaScript files? There's just https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires but it focuses on library deps and in particular specific versions. What do you think?

2 2

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-08-22 16:00 - 17:45 UTC)
by James Antill 22 Aug '13

22 Aug '13

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by abadger1999 at 16:01:58 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-08-22/fpc.2013-08-22… . Meeting summary --------------- * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/327 Python shebangs should not point to /usr/bin/python (abadger1999, 16:04:22) * LINK: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/#migration-notes (Rathann, 16:10:29) * passed a 3 part update to shebang lines. abadger1999 to modify the guidelines to implement the three changes. (abadger1999, 16:36:41) * #328 Soft-static uid/gid allocation for Performance Co-Pilot daemons (abadger1999, 16:36:59) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/328 (abadger1999, 16:39:05) * #329 Packaging Guideline: libtool should be regenerated in SPEC (abadger1999, 16:40:23) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/329 (abadger1999, 16:40:28) * #331 ruby guidelines requiring ruby(release) causes depsolving headache https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/331 (abadger1999, 17:23:52) Meeting ended at 17:46:40 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (98) * geppetto (41) * Rathann (30) * racor (24) * limburgher (19) * samkottler (16) * tibbs|w (16) * sgallagh (8) * Smoother1rOgZ (8) * RemiFedora (7) * zodbot (5) * dgilmore (5) * tibbs (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-08-22 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 21 Aug '13

21 Aug '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-08-22 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-08-22 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2013-08-22 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2013-08-22 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-08-22 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2013-08-22 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2013-08-22 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2013-08-22 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-08-23 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2013-08-23 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2013-08-23 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2013-08-23 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = New business = #topic #327 Python shebangs should not point to /usr/bin/python .fpc 327 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/327 #topic #328 Soft-static uid/gid allocation for Performance Co-Pilot daemons .fpc 328 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/328 #topic #329 Packaging Guideline: libtool should be regenerated in SPEC .fpc 329 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/329 #topic #331 ruby guidelines requiring ruby(release) causes depsolving headache .fpc 331 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/331 #topic #332 Bundling exception for IQmol .fpc 332 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/332 = 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.

1 0

Re: [Fedora-packaging] packaging Digest, Vol 102, Issue 15
by Jonathan De Wachter 17 Aug '13

17 Aug '13

I'm referring to the official naming policy to make this rename request and this isn't the result of a personal preference. So far, the rule saying the package name needs to match the upstream tarball is still not mentioned anywhere, and is totally absurd to me, for the several following reasons: 1) The package name needs to reflect the project, not its tarball name. As you said in the rename request ticket, using upper-case or lower-case originate from an individual's history, so the author in this case probably has used upper-case to ship his tarball because he's mainly a Windows user. However, Linux users tend to use lower-case naming. We should also keep in mind there isn't always a single "word" to call a project. People need to make the difference between canonical, formal and complete name, and the name chosen for the tarball isn't always the best for a package name. For example, we could have named our tarball the several way, and we can still do it: - sfml-2.0.tar.gz - SFML-2.0.tar.gz - sf-2.0.tar.gz - simple_and_fast_multimedia_library-2.0.tar.gz - Simple-and-Fast-Multimedia-Library-2.0.tar.gz I'm sure we can find a lot of ambiguous cases. 2) This invalidates the upstream's prefrence rule. 3) Many authors include a suffix or prefix to the project name to give a hint about what language this library is for. Reusing this suffix or prefix is silly, unless this does make the difference. I'm the author of pySFML and although I use the word "pySFML" to name my project and to refer to the binding for SFML, I ship my tarball under python-sfml-x.y.z.targ.gz. 4) You'd no longer have control on the package name. 5) What about tarball using fancy characters ? Even if it's out-of-the-subject, I recall that allowing upper-case in a package distribution context wasn't a good idea. I'm probably not the only one to be pissed off to remember the packages cases and it wouldn't serve any other purpose than differentiating two packages by their cases but won't happen since this is also a bad idea. To conclude, I would say we can still rename our tarball from SFML to sfml but I consider it's Fedora's job to pull our tarball and make it fit its policy, not the other way round. Sonkun. On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 2:00 PM, <packaging-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>wrote: > Send packaging mailing list submissions to > packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > packaging-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > packaging-owner(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of packaging digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Package naming guidelines (Michael Schwendt) > 2. Re: Package naming guidelines (Ralf Corsepius) > 3. Re: Package naming guidelines (Michael Schwendt) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:13:23 +0200 > From: Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> > To: <packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> > Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Package naming guidelines > Message-ID: <20130816191323.09aee25e(a)faldor.intranet> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Bad timing as weekend has arrived for many, but please, I would appreciate > comments on this one *and* the earlier feedback in the ticket: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679 > -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14 > > > Ralf Corsepius 2013-08-16 11:56:46 EDT > > > > You are forcing me to do something I've never done in Fedora before: > > > > (With my FPC-member hat on) This rename request violates the FPG, > > because the upstream zip-ball is called SFML, > > ... > > Source0: > http://www.sfml-dev.org/download/sfml/%{version}/SFML-%{version}-sources.zip > > ... > > It therefore MUST NOT be ACCEPTED. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 04:44:50 +0200 > From: Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> > To: Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora > <packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Package naming guidelines > Message-ID: <520EE3A2.9090007(a)freenet.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 08/16/2013 07:13 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Bad timing as weekend has arrived for many, but please, I would > appreciate > > comments on this one *and* the earlier feedback in the ticket: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679 > > -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14 > > Executive summary: > > In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679 the package maintainer of SFML > requests the SFML package to be renamed from SFML to sfml. > > I told him this would violated the FPG, because packages are supposed to > be named to after the tarball. However he continues to insist on this > renamer and sent comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14 in > response to make unmisunderstandibly clear that he leave me no choice > but to reject his package rename request. > > >> Ralf Corsepius 2013-08-16 11:56:46 EDT > >> > >> You are forcing me to do something I've never done in Fedora before: > >> > >> (With my FPC-member hat on) This rename request violates the FPG, > >> because the upstream zip-ball is called SFML, > >> ... > >> Source0: > http://www.sfml-dev.org/download/sfml/%{version}/SFML-%{version}-sources.zip > >> ... > >> It therefore MUST NOT be ACCEPTED. > > -- > > Ralf > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 10:13:06 +0200 > From: Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> > To: Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora > <packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Package naming guidelines > Message-ID: <20130817101306.7ab58a98(a)faldor.intranet> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 04:44:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On 08/16/2013 07:13 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Bad timing as weekend has arrived for many, but please, I would > appreciate > > > comments on this one *and* the earlier feedback in the ticket: > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679 > > > -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14 > > > > Executive summary: > > > > In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679 the package maintainer of SFML > > requests the SFML package to be renamed from SFML to sfml. > > > > I told him this would violated the FPG, because packages are supposed to > > be named to after the tarball. However he continues to insist on this > > renamer and sent comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14 in > > response to make unmisunderstandibly clear that he leave me no choice > > but to reject his package rename request. > > A few more details (the ticket comments aren't many, though): > > * In a previous Package Review request (bug 652085), it has been > lower-case naming (sfml.spec and src.rpm). Different submitter and > different > reviewer as with the upper-case SFML package submission, but with no > mention > of the lower-case packages in other dists, and with no discussion of the > naming guidelines. > > * One of the several bindings has been packaged in Fedora using lower-case > naming and with a lower-case "-sfml" in its subpackage name, too. Same > submitter as with the lower-case "sfml", but even another different > reviewer. > > * Several of the bindings (there's the plan to package more of them) use > a variety of mixed-case names, some all upper-case, others all lower-case. > Especially with regard to Fedora's %{parent}-%{child} naming guidelines > for add-on packages, it would get difficult and confusing to name the > package family properly. ( http://www.sfml-dev.org/download/bindings.php ) > > * > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity > | > | [...] Keep in mind to respect the wishes of the upstream maintainers. > | However, if they do not express any preference of case, you should > | default to lowercase naming. > > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming > | > | If this package has been packaged by other distributions/packagers > | in the past, then you should try to match their name for consistency. > > > ------------------------------ > > -- > packaging mailing list > packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging > > End of packaging Digest, Vol 102, Issue 15 > ****************************************** >

2 1

Package naming guidelines
by Michael Schwendt 17 Aug '13

17 Aug '13

Bad timing as weekend has arrived for many, but please, I would appreciate comments on this one *and* the earlier feedback in the ticket: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679 -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14 > Ralf Corsepius 2013-08-16 11:56:46 EDT > > You are forcing me to do something I've never done in Fedora before: > > (With my FPC-member hat on) This rename request violates the FPG, > because the upstream zip-ball is called SFML, > ... > Source0: http://www.sfml-dev.org/download/sfml/%{version}/SFML-%{version}-sources.zip > ... > It therefore MUST NOT be ACCEPTED.

2 2

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-08-15 16:00 - 17:40 UTC)
by James Antill 15 Aug '13

15 Aug '13

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by abadger1999 at 15:33:21 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-08-15/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/323 Web Assets (abadger1999, 15:35:29) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/JavaScript (abadger1999, 15:37:15) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/Web_Assets (abadger1999, 15:37:29) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy (abadger1999, 15:37:33) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/We… (tchol, 15:58:58) * Web assets guidelines passed (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 16:18:25) * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/326 Bundling exception for python-kapteyn (abadger1999, 16:19:01) * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/327 Python shebangs should not point to /usr/bin/python (abadger1999, 16:21:26) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Flock2013_Python_Guidelines#Whee… (abadger1999, 16:24:31) * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/328 Soft-static uid/gid allocation for Performance Co-Pilot (abadger1999, 16:25:48) * ACTION: abadger1999 to confirm that our understanding of Performance co-pilot is correct (abadger1999, 16:30:24) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 16:30:30) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/332 (tibbs|w, 16:33:15) * Bundling exception for IQmol https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/332 (abadger1999, 16:33:40) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Copylibs (limburgher, 16:37:05) * ACTION: Smoother1rOgZ and abadger1999 will help the packager figure out how to package these other pieces of code as libraries. (abadger1999, 16:46:11) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 16:46:31) * Revisit SCLs (abadger1999, 16:46:57) Meeting ended at 17:08:38 UTC. Action Items ------------ * abadger1999 to confirm that our understanding of Performance co-pilot is correct * Smoother1rOgZ and abadger1999 will help the packager figure out how to package these other pieces of code as libraries. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * abadger1999 * abadger1999 to confirm that our understanding of Performance co-pilot is correct * Smoother1rOgZ and abadger1999 will help the packager figure out how to package these other pieces of code as libraries. * Smoother1rOgZ * Smoother1rOgZ and abadger1999 will help the packager figure out how to package these other pieces of code as libraries. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (90) * limburgher (43) * tibbs|w (31) * tchol (30) * geppetto (17) * Smoother1rOgZ (16) * racor (10) * zodbot (4) * rathann2 (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-08-15 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 14 Aug '13

14 Aug '13

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-08-15 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-08-15 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT 2013-08-15 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT 2013-08-15 16:00 Thu UTC <- 2013-08-15 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST 2013-08-15 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST 2013-08-15 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST 2013-08-15 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2013-08-16 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2013-08-16 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2013-08-16 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2013-08-16 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12 = Followups = #topic #323 Web Assets .fpc 323 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/323 #topic #326 Bundling exception for python-kapteyn .fpc 326 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/326 = New business = #topic #327 Python shebangs should not point to /usr/bin/python .fpc 327 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/327 #topic #328 Soft-static uid/gid allocation for Performance Co-Pilot daemons .fpc 328 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/328 #topic #329 Packaging Guideline: libtool should be regenerated in SPEC .fpc 329 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/329 #topic #331 ruby guidelines requiring ruby(release) causes depsolving headache .fpc 331 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/331 #topic #332 Bundling exception for IQmol .fpc 332 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/332 #topic #334 Create a macro for selecting the proper ruby-(abi|release) version .fpc 334 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/334 = 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.

1 0

make URL tag mandatory
by Till Maas 14 Aug '13

14 Aug '13

Hi, I noticed that several packages do not contain a URL tag and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#tags does not require it. IMHO it would be nicer to have a valid URL tag for all packages. Therefore I want to propose to make it mandatory. What are your opinions? Regards Till

8 16

Addon Packages General Naming policy
by Michael Schwendt 12 Aug '13

12 Aug '13

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.2… | If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a | new functionality to an existing Fedora package without being useful on | its own, its name should reflect this fact. | | The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its name, | in the format: %{parent}-%{child}. It's a simple naming scheme. Yet it seems that this part of the Naming Guidelines is either not known widely enough, or some packagers and reviewers think they don't need to adhere to this policy without asking this list for feedback. And it's a "should" not a "must". What's up with "vim" add-on packages? IMO, it's a confusing mess if some of them start with vim- while others don't. Also, how to know whether/when a package has been renamed to follow the guidelines? Packages like "gap-vim" and "uzbl-vim" don't extend "gap" or "uzbl", but vim. # yum list \*-vim-\* Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Available Packages fluxbox-vim-syntax.noarch 1.3.5-1.fc19 fedora gap-vim.noarch 4.6.4-2.fc19 fedora golang-vim.noarch 1.1.1-5.fc19 updates protobuf-vim.x86_64 2.5.0-4.fc19 fedora texlive-context-vim.noarch 3:svn29984.0-0.1.fc19 updates texlive-context-vim-doc.noarch 3:svn29984.0-0.1.fc19 updates uzbl-vim.x86_64 0-0.31.20120514228bc38cbd.fc19 fedora wklej-vim.noarch 0.1.7-6.fc19 fedora # yum info \*-vim-\*|grep '^$Name\|Desc$' Name : fluxbox-vim-syntax Description : Enable vim syntax highlighting support for fluxbox configuration Name : gap-vim Description : This package provides VIM add-on files to support editing GAP Name : golang-vim Description : Vim plugins for Go. Name : protobuf-vim Description : This package contains syntax highlighting for Google Protocol Name : texlive-context-vim Description : ConTeXt has excellent pretty printing capabilities for many Name : texlive-context-vim-doc Description : Documentation for context-vim Name : uzbl-vim Description : Highlighting files for uzbl's configuration. Name : wklej-vim Description : A wklej.org submitter plugin for vim. On the contrary: # yum list vim-\* Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Installed Packages vim-minimal.x86_64 2:7.3.1314-1.fc19 @updates Available Packages vim-X11.x86_64 2:7.3.1314-1.fc19 updates vim-clustershell.noarch 1.6-3.fc19 fedora vim-command-t.x86_64 1.4-4.fc19 fedora vim-common.x86_64 2:7.3.1314-1.fc19 updates vim-enhanced.x86_64 2:7.3.1314-1.fc19 updates vim-filesystem.x86_64 2:7.3.1314-1.fc19 updates vim-halibut.noarch 1.0-7.20120803svn9601.fc19 fedora vim-jedi.noarch 0.5.0-5.fc19 fedora vim-latex.noarch 1.8.23-11.20130116.788.git2ef9956.fc19 fedora vim-latex-doc.noarch 1.8.23-11.20130116.788.git2ef9956.fc19 fedora vim-nerdtree.noarch 4.2.0-9.fc19 fedora vim-perl-support.noarch 5.0.1-3.fc19 fedora vim-taglist.noarch 4.6-5.fc19 fedora vim-vimoutliner.noarch 0.3.6-3.fc19 fedora

4 3

Macro usage for Fedora 20 documentation tree change
by Greg Bailey 07 Aug '13

07 Aug '13

Hello list, I have a package "mup" that currently fails to build in Rawhide due to the introduction of the following Fedora 20 feature: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs My current (broken) spec file has things like the following to fix up file paths referenced by the upstream makefile: sed -i -e 's|DOCDIR = $(PREFIX)/share/doc/packages/mup|DOCDIR = $(PREFIX)/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}|' makefile It's broken because the "make install" invocation installs things to "/usr/share/doc/mup-6.1" but RPM in rawhide is now looking for documentation files in "/usr/share/doc/mup" (unversioned). My initial thinking was to set %{_docdir_fmt} if it's not already set, using: # Set %_docdir_fmt if it's not already defined %{!?_docdir_fmt: %global _docdir_fmt %%{name}-%%{version} } And then replace the sed line above with: sed -i -e 's|DOCDIR = $(PREFIX)/share/doc/packages/mup|DOCDIR = $(PREFIX)/share/doc/%{_docdir_fmt}|' makefile This change allows builds to work on EPEL6, but breaks on rawhide because in Fedora 20, %{_docdir_fmt} is set to "%{NAME}". The %{NAME} macro doesn't appear to change to "mup" (my package), but "%{name}" *does* evaluate to "mup". As a result, I end up installing files to the literal path "/usr/share/doc/%{NAME}". It's not clear to me whether macros are supposed to be case-sensitive or not, but if I echo "%{NAME}" and "%{name}" in my .spec file, I get 2 different answers. I'm a relatively new packager, and would appreciate any advice from the experts here as to how best to refer to the correct documentation path (i.e. "%{_pkgdocdir}" in rawhide) without having to maintain 2 different spec files. thanks! Greg

5 8

Epoch:0
by Christopher Meng 06 Aug '13

06 Aug '13

Hi, I just took over a package and found this package has Epoch tag, but its value is 0. I'm not sure if I can remove it? Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

3 7

Against what package do I file this BZ?
by Darryl L. Pierce 05 Aug '13

05 Aug '13

There is at least one (likely more) scripts in use for doing mass rebuilds that are incorrectly bumping the release value. I noticed this before and brought it up in IRC but didn't file a bug then. What's going on is that the script is incrementing the release by 1 but is not rounding off the value. So, for example, from one package I maintain (perl-qpid_proton) I see the following in the %changelog: * Sun Aug 04 2013 Fedora Release Engineering * <rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> - 0.4-3.1 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass_Rebuild * Mon Jul 22 2013 Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> - 0.4-2.1 - Perl 5.18 rebuild * Mon Apr 1 2013 Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com> - 0.4-1.1 - Changed the qpid-proton dependency to qpid-proton-c. - Changed the qpid-proton-devel dependency to qpid-proton-c-devel. * Fri Mar 1 2013 Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com> - 0.4-1 - Rebased on Proton 0.4. The scripts doing these mass rebuilds ought to be doing something lik: release = floor(current_release + 1) rather than just bumping by 1. -- Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce(a)gmail.com> http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/ "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

4 8

Confirmation on package rename
by Simone Caronni 03 Aug '13

03 Aug '13

Hello, can someone please tell me if I understood correctly the packaging guidelines regarding packages being retired after a rename [1]? Upstream has changed between minor releases how the source code is packaged. Instead of multiple source tarballs there is only one tarball that is used to generate the same packages as before; so the update is for all branches. Should I run "fedpkg retire <explanation>" in each branch that is going to be obsolete by the new packages AFTER the new packages [2] hit stable, right? Thanks, much appreciated. --Simone [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-13687/guacamole-client-… -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). http://xkcd.com/229/ http://negativo17.org/

2 2

SPEC files with scl_prefix macro in Fedora
by Lukas Zapletal 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Hello, I was searching around a bit on the wiki and in list archives, but without any luck, so asking here. He have several dozens of packages (mostly Ruby packages) prepared for our projects (Foreman, Katello, Pulp, Candlepin and few others). We already submitted and maintain some packages in Fedora, but our plan is to make our SPEC files compliant and start submitting all of them over the time. The only issue is we need to keep our SCL macros (maily scl_prefix and few others) in our packages, because as you can see [1] it is pretty inconvenient to maintain those as a separate branches or patch sets (the scl_prefix is spread all over the SPEC file causing lots of conflicts). I have been trying to find some information about SCL macros and if these are allowed in SPEC files in Fedora. We are willing to submit packages and maintain them of course, but before we start pushing review request, I would like to be clear if this is not prohibited from Fedora. Of course, I understand SCL is not allowed as described here [2], but the issue I am writing about is only about having some macros in our SPEC files which are left unexpanded in Fedora Koji of course. The main drawback is readability which is worse in this case. On the other hand, if unexpanded macros are not prohibited, SCL should make no difference. If they are, I'd like to start conversation about possibility to make an exception for this case. I would like to read your opinions about that and if there is no document allowing these macros, I'd like to ask to help me to create one. We need an official document which can be used during reviews in case there are doubts about the SCL macros. Thank you for your help. [1] - http://bit.ly/13rzLFF (example of a SCL enabled Ruby package) [2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SoftwareCollections -- Later, Lukas "lzap" Zapletal irc: lzap #theforeman

2 2

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-08-01 16:00 - 17:40 UTC)
by James Antill 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 15:29:08 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-08-01/fpc.2013-08-01… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 15:29:14) * Node.js guidelines update - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/311 (spot, 15:32:44) * ACTION: Draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 15:52:47) * BuildRequires: pkgconfig(foo) - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/320 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgConfigBuildRequires (spot, 15:53:33) * ACTION: revised draft approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:00:43) * Web Assets - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/323 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/Web_Assets (spot, 16:01:43) * Poor Packaging:CronFiles guidelines - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/324 (spot, 16:19:53) * ACTION: improved wording (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:32:55) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/261#comment:8 (abadger1999, 16:35:51) * Temporary bundling exception of yajl library - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/325 (spot, 16:44:58) * Bundling exception for python-kapteyn - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/326 (spot, 16:46:42) * ACTION: limburgher will follow up to get questions answered (spot, 16:50:36) * Python shebangs should not point to /usr/bin/python - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/327 (spot, 16:50:51) * Open Floor (spot, 17:09:23) Meeting ended at 17:11:22 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * revised draft approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * improved wording (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * limburgher will follow up to get questions answered Action Items, by person ----------------------- * limburgher * limburgher will follow up to get questions answered * **UNASSIGNED** * Draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * revised draft approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) * improved wording (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (89) * abadger1999 (64) * tibbs|w (39) * geppetto (35) * limburgher (31) * RemiFedora (21) * dwmw2 (21) * Smoother1rOgZ (7) * zodbot (3) * ignatenkobrain (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging August 2013