[Fedora-php-devel-list] Change proposal: drop runtime dependency on PEAR
by Remi Collet
Hi,
For now all our PECL extensions have a dependency on php-pear.
PEAR is mostly dead and most user don't want to install it.
(The project is not dead, it even work with PHP 7, but most users have
switched to composer)
In fact, the pecl command is only used in scriptlets for extension
(un)registration (to allow manual pecl/pear usage). Really nothing is
required at runtime.
So I'd like to remove dependency on /usr/bin/pecl for PECL extension.
Here is a proposal for new scriptlets
# when pear installed alone, after us
%triggerin -- %{?scl_prefix}php-pear
if [ -x %{__pecl} ] ; then
%{pecl_install} %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml >/dev/null || :
fi
# posttrans as pear can be installed after us
%posttrans
if [ -x %{__pecl} ] ; then
%{pecl_install} %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml >/dev/null || :
fi
%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{__pecl} ] ; then
%{pecl_uninstall} %{pecl_name} >/dev/null || :
fi
Notice: pear still required at build time for macro definition.
Notice; this is already used to also fix a circular dep issue
(php-pecl-jsonc => php-pear => php-cli => php-common => php-pecl-jsonc)
Minor issue, /var/lib/pear/pkgxml (%{pecl_xmldir}) is own by php-pear.
So we also need to move this directory to php-common to avoid unowned
dir when pear is not installed.
Comments, before opening a FPC ticket ?
Remi.
7 years, 8 months
Versioned weak dependencies
by Shawn Iwinski
How are versioned weak dependencies handled? Can I "Suggests"/"Recommends"
min and max versions or can I only supply the main package and use
"Conflicts" to enforce version ranges?
For example:
Suggests: pkg >= 1.0
Suggests: pkg < 2.0
or
Suggests: pkg
Conflicts: pkg < 1.0
Conflicts: pkg >= 2.0
7 years, 8 months
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Commit_Revision
improvement
by Sérgio Basto
Hi,
At list for github we can remove ".tar.gz#" [1] may (or should) I update the wiki ?
-Source0: https://github.com/OWNER/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz
+Source0: https://github.com/OWNER/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz
Thanks,
--
Sérgio M. B.
7 years, 8 months
Re: python-macros review
by Orion Poplawski
On 12/30/2015 02:48 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com> wrote:
>> I've submitted a review for a separate python-macros package here:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294904
>>
>> This is what the FPC approved here
>> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567#comment:12 to be added to the Fedora
>> buildroots to provide the %python3_pkgversion macro needed for compatibility
>> with the EPEL Python3 packaging guidelines.
>>
>> It also serves the much more important goal of getting the python macros out
>> of the the individual python? packages to make it easier to update them.
>>
>
> Don't we normally name these something to the effect of
> "<name>-srpm-macros"? For example, we have "go-srpm-macros" and
> "perl-srpm-macros". Shouldn't this be named "python-srpm-macros" for
> consistency purposes?
I guess you're right, though we have a mix at the moment:
blender-rpm-macros.noarch 1:2.76-2.fc24 rawhide
erlang-rpm-macros.noarch 0.1.4-2.fc23 rawhide
ghc-rpm-macros.x86_64 1.4.15-3.fc23 rawhide
ghc-srpm-macros.noarch 1.4.2-2.fc23 rawhide
gnat-srpm-macros.noarch 2-1.fc23 rawhide
go-srpm-macros.noarch 2-3.fc24 rawhide
kde-apps-rpm-macros.noarch 6:4.14.15-3.fc24 rawhide
kernel-rpm-macros.noarch 36-1.fc24 rawhide
kf5-rpm-macros.noarch 5.17.0-2.fc24 rawhide
ocaml-srpm-macros.noarch 2-3.fc23 rawhide
perl-srpm-macros.noarch 1-17.fc23 rawhide
And some just "-macros":
perl-macros.x86_64 4:5.22.1-355.fc24 koji
python-macros.noarch 2.7.11-1.fc24 koji
python3-pkgversion-macros.noarch 1-5.fc24 koji
sip-macros.noarch 4.17-3.fc24 koji
But it does look like it is the *-srpm-macros that tend to be in the buildroot.
--
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
7 years, 8 months
Usage of %license tag when the license text is in a readme
by Piotr Popieluch
Hi,
I've encountered a couple times that an upstream project adds the full
license text to the end of a readme file. It is not clear to me how to
handle these situations. What to do:
1) add readme file only to %doc
2) add readme file only to %license
3) add readme to both %doc and %license
4) cut file in two parts
Any ideas?
Piotr
7 years, 9 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2015-12-17 17:00 - 17:40
UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 17:00:27 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-12-17/fpc.2015-12-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 17:00:27)
* Schedule (geppetto, 17:03:59)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging%
40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FLS2WNHGB7N5KGFPDJWMLPJZWJF3BD4P/
(geppetto, 17:04:02)
* #547 SourceURL addition/clarification - Submodules (geppetto,
17:04:36)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/547 (geppetto, 17:04:47)
* ACTION: SourceURL addition/clarification - Submodules (+1:7, 0:0,
-1:0) (geppetto, 17:20:31)
* #583 Node.js Guideline Addition (geppetto, 17:21:07)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/583 (geppetto, 17:21:19)
* ACTION: Node.js Guideline Addition, to do loads in %check (+1:7,
0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:30:42)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 17:31:35)
Meeting ended at 17:40:14 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* SourceURL addition/clarification - Submodules (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0)
* Node.js Guideline Addition, to do loads in %check (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0)
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* SourceURL addition/clarification - Submodules (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0)
* Node.js Guideline Addition, to do loads in %check (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* geppetto (52)
* orionp (15)
* tibbs (14)
* zodbot (12)
* Rathann (11)
* tomspur (10)
* gbcox (8)
* mbooth (5)
* racor (2)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
7 years, 9 months
mock: failure on libtool dependecy
by zosrothko
Hi
With the followin rpm.spec snippet
BuildRequires: openssl-devel
BuildRequires: libtool
building with mock -r default --rebuimypackage.src.rpm ends up in
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lltdl
/builddir/build/BUILD/poco-1.7.0-all/build/rules/exec:59: recipe for
target
'/builddir/build/BUILD/poco-1.7.0-all/Data/ODBC/testsuite/bin/Linux/x86_64/testrunner'
failed
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Did I miss something in the spec requirments?
zos
7 years, 9 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2015-12-10 17:00 - 17:50
UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 17:00:44 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-12-10/fpc.2015-12-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 17:00:44)
* Schedule (geppetto, 17:08:02)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging%
40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YFHSMMFJCA7TP6JDTXJF4T3U3CDSYGZH/
(geppetto, 17:08:07)
* #582 Delegate legibility vs cross-distro maintainability trade-off to
package maintainers (geppetto, 17:09:10)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/582 (geppetto, 17:09:19)
* Dropping COPR reference, add some text to make it obvious you can
still install macros just not use them from specfiles. (geppetto,
17:34:36)
* ACTION: paragraph be added to the spec legibility section of the
guidelines (+1:5, 0:1, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:35:09)
* #580 [Clarification] Policy on auto-generated code (geppetto,
17:35:33)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/580 (geppetto, 17:35:41)
* #567 Packaging Python 3 applications and modules for EPEL 7+
(geppetto, 17:36:29)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567 (geppetto, 17:36:38)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 17:46:08)
Meeting ended at 17:48:04 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* paragraph be added to the spec legibility section of the guidelines
(+1:5, 0:1, -1:0)
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* paragraph be added to the spec legibility section of the guidelines
(+1:5, 0:1, -1:0)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* geppetto (56)
* tibbs|w (23)
* zodbot (12)
* orionp (10)
* Rathann (10)
* racor (9)
* mbooth (7)
* tibbs (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
7 years, 9 months
%doc: how to specify a Source<n> for the %doc directive?
by zosrothko
Hi
I have a rpm.spec with 2 Sources, one for the source code named Source0
and the second for the documentation named Source1 -- see below snippet
of the spec --. The execution of the %doc directive jumps into the
Source0 directory -- rendered in bold in the log below -- while it
should jumps into the Source1 directory _poco-1.7.0-all-doc_ in as
specified by the second %setup
So how could I fix this directory change?
Source0:
file://localhost/home/fandre/poco/releases/%{name}-%{version}-all.tar.gz
Source1:
file://localhost/home/fandre/poco/releases/%{name}-%{version}-all-doc.tar.gz
...
%prep
#%setup -qn %{name}-%{gittag0}
%setup -T -b 0 -qn %{name}-%{version}-all
%setup -T -b 1 -qn %{name}-%{version}-all-doc
...
%files doc
%defattr(-, root, root, -)
%doc %{name}-%{version}-all-doc/*
Traitement des fichiers : poco-doc-1.7.0-1.fc22.10.x86_64
Exécution_de(%doc) : /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.yRJjf1
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/fandre/distro/Linux/Fedora/gcc-5.1/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ *cd poco-1.7.0-all*
+
DOCDIR=/home/fandre/distro/Linux/Fedora/gcc-5.1/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/poco-1.7.0-1.fc22.10.x86_64/usr/share/doc/poco-doc
+ export DOCDIR
+ /usr/bin/mkdir -p
/home/fandre/distro/Linux/Fedora/gcc-5.1/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/poco-1.7.0-1.fc22.10.x86_64/usr/share/doc/poco-doc
+ cp -pr 'poco-1.7.0-all-doc/*'
/home/fandre/distro/Linux/Fedora/gcc-5.1/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/poco-1.7.0-1.fc22.10.x86_64/usr/share/doc/poco-doc
cp: cannot stat 'poco-1.7.0-all-doc/*': No such file or directory
7 years, 9 months
