packaging September 2013

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

47 participants
34 discussions

InitialCC for new packages?
by Christopher Meng 13 Sep '13

13 Sep '13

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

4 4

Fedora Packaging guidelines for LibreOffice's extensions
by Antonio Trande 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

-----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.com https://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-----

1 0

Should .so files under python site dir be 755 perms?
by Christopher Meng 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

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

4 8

Wiki How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25check_section
by Michael Schwendt 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

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?

3 3

Different source / binary package names
by Orion Poplawski 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

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

2 3

Is this allowed? Files and libs duplicated in subpackages
by Michael Schwendt 07 Sep '13

07 Sep '13

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.

5 9

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-09-05 16:00 - 17:55 UTC)
by James Antill 05 Sep '13

05 Sep '13

====================== #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

2 1

How to handle tests in %check
by Miroslav Suchý 05 Sep '13

05 Sep '13

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

5 5

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-09-05 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 04 Sep '13

04 Sep '13

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.

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging September 2013