February 2014 - packaging - Fedora Mailing-Lists

by Björn Esser

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

4 years

11
29
0 / 0

[colord] Add conflict on icc-profiles-openicc

by ku.b-mal

Hello, I am the upstream maintainer of a number of colour management packages including icc-profiles-openicc and new to this list. Due to the speciality of matters, I jump in here. Reason for my write: [colord] Add conflict on icc-profiles-openicc : https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/Week-of-Mon-2013120... Problem: The above Conflict tag breaks several packages, which rely on icc-profiles-openicc, namely oyranos and depending graphics software. We have no bug reports upstream, or in openSUSE, where I maintain many colour management packages, nor see I such in Fedora in order to work upstream to fix anything. In the past I was able to fix several issues including those arrised by openSUSE, Fedora, Debian, Gentoo and other distro packagers. The Conflict tag causes now uncertaincy to packagers and forces me to take from my development time on bug reports, finding out how packaging works in Fedora etc. Request: remove the RPM spec Conflict tag immediately as it misuses the GNOME requirement for colord to block Oyranos from Fedora without fixable reasoning. Bug reports: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069672 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042655) Background: colord author Richard Hughes sees himself as a competitor to the elder Oyranos project, which helped paving the way for linux color management. Not sure why he continues to repeat FUD[1] all over the place regarding Oyranos. See the open bug as an example for that. But, as you might imagine, that feels unfriendly. kind regards and sorry for the noice Kai-Uwe -- www.oyranos.org [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

4 years, 11 months

3
3
0 / 0

Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

by Alexander Todorov

Hi folks, thanks for your feedback in the last few days. I've created two wiki pages about packages which don't execute their tests in %check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testing_in_check and another one for packages which don't seem to have test suites at all: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Missing_upstream_test_suites My intent is for these pages to serve as a source of working material for Fedora volunteers. Note: there are some false negatives which I still haven't filtered out - work in progress. Please forward this to anyone who may be interested to work on these items as we need lots of hands to make any significant improvements! (In particular I will soon teach to students and will point them here). Any comments and proposals are welcome! Thanks, Alex

4 years, 11 months

4
6
0 / 0

Re: [Fedora-packaging] How to calculate priority for missing tests or %check

by Alexander Todorov

На 27.02.2014 21:31, Aleksandar Kurtakov написа: > I have similar feelings as ajax. It's not whether it's useless of treasure. If someone says "give me commit rights as I want to make tests build|fix url|fix formatting|improve BRs|etc. in package A you're maintainer" I would be more than happy to welcome him/her as co-maintainer but just showing me such things as something to be improved is not something that I would hurry to even look at as I'm aware of way more problems that affect even runtime behaviour of the package and until these more important things get fixed the rest is smth that the one identifing should come with a fix otherwise it will stay for the bright future when we have endless time and resources. > So you mean somewhere around Fedora 100 when we enter the Singularity :). >>>> On 27.02.2014 17:24, Adam Jackson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 16:03 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> Btw the URL field in the spec file should be updated to >>>>>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libpciaccess/ >>>>> >>>>> Oh yes, another useless rpm feature, I'll be sure to make that my top >>>>> priority. >>>> Indeed I run a small test and from 2574 RPMs on the source DVD there is around 40% of "something different than HTTP 200 OK". The majority (30%) are responses in the 3XX range and only less than 10% are actual errors (4XX, 5XX, missing URLs or connection errors). I'm not sure what purpose does the URL field serve nowadays but it looks like it can be removed from the spec file (and RPM for that matter)! -- Alex

4 years, 11 months

2
1
0 / 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2014-02-27 17:00 - 18:50 UTC)

by James Antill

============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee ============================================= Meeting started by spot at 17:03:44 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-27/fpc.2014-02-... . Meeting summary --------------- * Software collections in Fedora (https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339) (spot, 17:06:57) * Go Packaging Draft - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/382 (spot, 17:13:06) * workarounds for rpm symlink <-> directory issue - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/385 (spot, 17:14:18) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/... (spot, 17:15:05) * Recommend %autosetup over %setup - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/388 (spot, 17:27:47) * LINK: http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/Autosetup has the meat (spot, 17:32:57) * ACTION: spot's mini-draft approved (+1:7, 0:1, -1:0) (spot, 17:43:54) * Exception for bundled libs in icecat - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/391 (spot, 17:45:32) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/472#comment:16 (abadger1999, 17:48:08) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049889 => no comment (RemiFedora, 18:03:31) * icecat bundling tabled for this week as there's both questions of what we should be doing and fairness wrt firefox. (abadger1999, 18:09:10) * #393 New Packaging Guidelines: Drupal 7 (abadger1999, 18:09:28) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/393 (abadger1999, 18:09:34) * Drupal7 guidelines approved with the virtual provides requirement changed to MUST (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 18:28:49) * #394 Outdated guideline about Requires(foo,bar) syntax (abadger1999, 18:28:51) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/394 (abadger1999, 18:28:59) * Remove the Scriptlets requirements section from the Guidelines and add them to the epel guidelines for EL5 (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 18:31:21) * #395 Mono guidelines include hard-coded library paths (abadger1999, 18:31:53) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/395 (abadger1999, 18:31:58) * Mono path macros approved with the folowing changes: prepend with an underscore and use %{_prefix} (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 18:37:20) * #396 Reserve static UID/GID for OpenStack ironic daemon (abadger1999, 18:37:34) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/396 (abadger1999, 18:37:39) * #397 Please, choose an ID number for a new group called "input" (abadger1999, 18:39:01) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/397 (abadger1999, 18:39:07) * Open floor (abadger1999, 18:50:19) Meeting ended at 18:52:30 UTC. Action Items ------------ * spot's mini-draft approved (+1:7, 0:1, -1:0) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * spot * spot's mini-draft approved (+1:7, 0:1, -1:0) * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (96) * abadger1999 (92) * geppetto (51) * tibbs|w (32) * RemiFedora (24) * Rathann (22) * limburgher (9) * SmootherFrOgZ (7) * zodbot (6) * willb (5) * tstclair (2) * nirik (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

4 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

Naming guidelines: outdated info about tilde in version

by Ville Skyttä

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag 'Non-use of tilde "~"': The outdated "it is not supported by rpm in currently supported Fedora releases." bullet point should be removed -- in fact there's no currently supported Fedora release where rpm wouldn't support it.

4 years, 12 months

3
3
0 / 0

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Packages with missing %check

by Alexander Todorov

На 26.02.2014 15:56, David Howells написа: > Alexander Todorov <atodorov(a)redhat.com> wrote: > >> How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or >> add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why >> there are no tests for this package. > > Does %check install the package and run the tests as root? For the keyutils > package that I maintain, this would be a requirement to be able to run the > testsuite because: > > (1) There are certain operations that cannot be tested if you're not root. > > (2) The kernel must be able to upcall to executables installed by the rpm. > > I imagine this applies to some other packages also. > I does, but not sure to how many. %check is executed during rpmbuild time right after %build so limitations apply. -- Alex

4 years, 12 months

2
1
0 / 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2014-02-27 17:00 UTC)

by James Antill

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2014-02-27 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2014-02-27 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST 2014-02-27 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST 2014-02-27 17:00 Thu UTC <- 2014-02-27 17:00 Thu Europe/London <- 2014-02-27 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CET 2014-02-27 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CET 2014-02-27 22:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST ------------------new day---------------------- 2014-02-28 01:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT 2014-02-28 01:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT 2014-02-28 02:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST 2014-02-28 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, /opt exception passed) #topic #339 software collections in Fedora .fpc 339 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 #topic #382 Go Packaging Guidelines Draft .fpc 382 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/382 #topic #385 workarounds for rpm symlink <-> directory issue .fpc 385 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/385 #topic #388 recommend %autosetup over %setup .fpc 388 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/388 = New business = #topic #391 Exception for bundled libraries in icecat .fpc 391 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/391 #topic #393 New Packaging Guidelines: Drupal 7 .fpc 393 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/393 #topic #394 Outdated guideline about Requires(foo,bar) syntax .fpc 394 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/394 #topic #395 Mono guidelines include hard-coded library paths .fpc 395 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/395 #topic #396 Reserve static UID/GID for OpenStack ironic daemon .fpc 396 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/396 #topic #397 Please, choose an ID number for a new group called "input" .fpc 397 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/397 = 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.

4 years, 12 months

3
2
0 / 0

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Packages with missing %check

by Richard W.M. Jones

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:56:22PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Alexander Todorov <atodorov(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > > How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or > > add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why > > there are no tests for this package. > > Does %check install the package and run the tests as root? No, of course not. > For the keyutils > package that I maintain, this would be a requirement to be able to run the > testsuite because: > > (1) There are certain operations that cannot be tested if you're not root. > > (2) The kernel must be able to upcall to executables installed by the rpm. > > I imagine this applies to some other packages also. You can throw up a VM to test this, if you really wanted to do it in %check. libguestfs does this. However it's not especially easy, and it's fairly ugly. For the sorts of tests you are talking about it's much better to test the final RPM installed in a full OS environment. That is what (I hope) Taskotron is trying to do. Also what Colin is doing with his ostree testing effort. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW

4 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

Lightening Ekiga

by Mircea Sava

Hi! Is it possible to have a lite version of ekiga, w.o. gnome integration? It would be much appreciated.

4 years, 12 months

2
1
0 / 0

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging February 2014