Hi,
In these days this problem are hitting more and more people, I can see
many SIGs on the page, but is it compulsory/mandatory for all
packagers to add CC to some SIGs? I can't see any reference in the PG,
only in Package SCM admin requests page. Also is this list
up-to-dated? Like if new SIGs are founded, should we revise the PG
also? e.g. design-software.
Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Always playing in Fedora Project
http://cicku.me
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all.
Are there Fedora Packaging guidelines specific for LibreOffice's
extensions ?
I've only seen those for OpenOffice
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OpenOffice.orgExtensions)
- --
- ----
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter(a)fedoraproject.org
http://www.fedoraos.worpress.comhttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: D400D6C4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSMetHAAoJED2vIvfUANbE48gP/iw5s+HUjSNwf+osnqGEsGcI
tj2GG7I3Nhse/ZvRq1qNFjrpXA1bKJSvHFoo4pZ+ZGVh/O3g+a1VJtxC0ru7z+XB
PUq6DTBdpdRdsm2cIc82UohqwQH4AfBChpbDuNHtC9ctg2x17NOHAVqV6e97ZgbE
Pfq26uBxy4DUoJR3gfsdT2jYdsNhsUJg6RkfqBanoVY7oi+Fjd9nGynomqoAotP4
3BWs4fl+SXO/rp7CFG4ubKBRMTkYV4X05qL80qFXTZQrsREk7V08OQOvHM4c50LS
7K4NZM1z0mcb85jcsmPnQNAf0IWWOEoWf5AHlulMVp7rwODwAA6G3ugLWn8Z8aWA
4iiatztioFgdGiGKYHEQ0/SbEzE9xFigSSw6VszBCATON8B/LA3e5BebIH4w1wkD
vEGKTcNIALqwFXkxrsBVoqWPA3SxlTPGPW1xVeAz63uDTOtWvLvUCmVjIPNrdqTq
uL++g0tiWT7PcH64xgi5JlTljL97lT6lf2SLysncfLrcRNgL2/JUZKwwiqp5hJN2
0hl8R4lGGQqBUnqRKUxNxY8GYRlcjwYGE7kVF+zyImQKO5+kvtcv5N89T0okJOQP
4HyjnN2/WINAwIDBZfOw0tOfZojdwVT7dcV6G8iFKae8BDtcARfemNpEvt5r99Wv
rYbNmJwUJ0PcJzyzXn8O
=FaHs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi,
I have a python-pygit2 review, in this review the reviewer asked me to
change the perms of the .so files from 755 to 644. In fact I've done
this for many other packages, but I want to ask if this is really
needed?
I've asked pygit2 upstream at: https://github.com/libgit2/pygit2/issues/259
They said that pillow has 755 perms so files, too. So I ran:
[rpmaker@fab PIL]$ ls -al|grep .so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 15768 8月 29 19:30 _imagingcms.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 15976 8月 29 19:30 _imagingft.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 18732 8月 29 19:30 _imagingmath.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 290820 8月 29 19:30 _imaging.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 10524 8月 29 19:30 _imagingtk.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 10548 8月 29 19:30 _webp.so
Well seems they are 755, too.
What should I do now?
Thanks in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Always playing in Fedora Project
http://cicku.me
In reply to:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/982351
> > Referring to rpmlint, your package is OK. But shouldn't be the %check
> > section after %install? Maybe it is important to run the tests after
> > installation. All Python packages I've reviewed do so.
>
> It is actually documented[1] that %check follows %build, also tests run in the
> builddir directory, code installed in buildrootdir is not used.
> I guess other packages follow rpmbuild execution order which runs %check after
> %install no matter what order is it in spec.
> There are also other Fedora py rpms which have %build %check %install order
> e.g.
>
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25check_section
That HowTo says:
| [...] the %check section (which immediately follows the %build section)
Why is that?
IMO, %check should be placed after the %install section, because rpmbuild
executes it after %install. And because in some cases one performs tests
on the files in %buildroot rather than uninstalled files in the builddir.
Is there any good reason why to put it after %build?
I'm starting to package more of the X2Go stuff and running into some
Debianisms. Namely different source and binary package names. For example:
The source package "x2goplasmabingings" with source tarball
x2goplasmabindings-3.0.1.5.tar.gz produces a binary package called
"plasma-widget-x2go" (which matches the way other plasma widgets are named).
So, is a package like:
Name: x2goplasmabindings
Summary: Plasma widget for control X2go sessions
%description
%description -n plasma-widget-x2go
X2go is a server-based computing environment with
- session resuming
- low bandwidth support
- LDAP support
- client side mass storage mounting support
- audio support
- authentication by smartcard and USB stick
This package adds a plasma widget (KDE4) for controlling your X2go session.
%package -n plasma-widget-x2go
Summary: %{summary}
%description -n plasma-widget-x2go
X2go is a server-based computing environment with
- session resuming
- low bandwidth support
- LDAP support
- client side mass storage mounting support
- audio support
- authentication by smartcard and USB stick
This package adds a plasma widget (KDE4) for controlling your X2go session.
%files -n plasma-widget-x2go -f plasma_applet_x2goplasmoid.lang
...
Okay? Is there a way to avoid repeating the description?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1003196
Based on this suspicious output
mate-dictionary from mate-utils
provides libmatedict.so.6()(64bit)
mate-utils from mate-utils
provides libmatedict.so.6()(64bit)
required by: mate-dictionary-devel-1.6.0-7.fc20.x86_64
required by: mate-utils-devel-1.6.0-7.fc20.x86_64
I've only verified in koji that lots of files are included in both
sub-packages. Even the descriptions overlap.
And there are even more subpackages, which only contain copies of
files included in the base mate-utils package already.
Why is that done? Why aren't RPM dependencies used to have the
base-package depend on the multiple subpackages?
So far, it has always been a packaging mistake to duplicate files (and
their Provides as a consequence) in multiple subpackages.
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by abadger1999 at 16:02:48 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-09-05/fedora-meeting…
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 (abadger1999, 16:07:52)
* #336 Please clarify the General Naming Guidelines for packages
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/336 (abadger1999, 16:36:12)
* #337 Guidelines needed for header only libraries
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/337 (abadger1999, 16:50:11)
* #343 copylib bundling exception for qtbrowserplugin in x2goclient
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/343 (abadger1999, 17:09:14)
* How to replace "docker" package with an entirely different package of
the same name? https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/341 (abadger1999,
17:25:25)
* LINK:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Conflicting_Package_Names
(abadger1999, 17:33:18)
* Proposal: Allow the wmdocker rename to omit the Provides: docker [It
will keep the Obsoletes: docker for the standard 2 fedora releases].
This means that docker.io can go in with a Provides: docker now and
be renamed to docker when the Obsoletes are removed. (Currently +4.
need more votes in ticket) (abadger1999, 17:52:45)
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/318 broken scriptlets
%systemd_post (abadger1999, 17:54:16)
* Add BuildRequires?: systemd to the examples (.fpc 318) passes,
(+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:56:10)
* Open Floor (abadger1999, 17:56:18)
Meeting ended at 18:04:18 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* abadger1999 (107)
* geppetto (58)
* tibbs|w (31)
* mattdm (28)
* racor (21)
* orionp (19)
* SmootherFrOgZ (16)
* misc (4)
* zodbot (3)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
Hi,
I would like to ask on your opinion on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912960#c25
Mamoru have in spec in %check section:
ruby -Ilib:test ./test/run-test.rb || echo "Please investigate this"
I'm saying that it should not be waived this way as it waive all failure.
I'm saying that if there is no failure, it should be just:
ruby -Ilib:test ./test/run-test.rb
and if there happened some problem which need upstream attention and
could not be fixed immediatelly, it should be replaced with something like:
FILE=$(mktemp)
ruby -Ilib:test ./test/run-test.rb | tee $FILE || :
# test foo is failing, reported as http://foo/issue/1
cat $FILE | grep "4 tests, 4 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors, 0
pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications
Mamoru disagree. For me it is blocker.
I would like to ask for your opinions. Which way is correct and should
it be blocker for review?
Thanks in advance.
Mirek
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2013-09-05 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2013-09-05 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2013-09-05 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2013-09-05 16:00 Thu UTC <-
2013-09-05 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST
2013-09-05 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST
2013-09-05 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST
2013-09-05 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST
------------------new day----------------------
2013-09-06 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT
2013-09-06 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT
2013-09-06 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST
2013-09-06 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/12
= Followups =
#topic #338 %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts
.fpc 338
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338
= New business =
#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 #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
#topic #341 How to replace "docker" package with an entirely different package of the same name?
.fpc 341
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/341
#topic #343 copylib bundling exception for qtbrowserplugin in x2goclient
.fpc 343
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/343
= 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.