Fixing wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines
by Jun Aruga
Dear Packagers who are using Boostrapping logic for the cyclical dependency
Need your help to fix wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines.
This mail is long.
Sorry for that in advance.
You may be building the cyclical dependency packages by using a variable such as _with_bootstrap, need_bootstrap, bootstrap, enable_test, and etc..
For example, you may build with below ways for that, if you will use mock command.
```
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --with=bootstrap *.src.rpm
=> _with_bootstrap can be used as --with=bootstrap
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define '_with_bootstrap 1' *.src.rpm
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define 'need_bootstrap 1' *.src.rpm
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --define 'enable_test 1' *.src.rpm
...
```
Here is a document page to unify the Bootstrap logic.
You may know it.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bootstrapping
However I found that below part in the page is wrong.
```
%{!?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1}
```
Because ..
If _with_bootstrap is not set from outside, bootstrap is 1
=> bootstrap is True/Enabled
if _with_bootstrap is set as 1 from outside, bootstrap's value is not set.
=> the value is empty if it is not declared in advance. It's a kind of 0. bootstrap is False/Disabled.
This situation is opposite meaning of "_with_bootstrap".
Below way not using negative operator `!?` is correct.
```
%{?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1}
```
The reason why I wrote this here is
I found that had already been reported 2 years ago for packaging committee, however it was closed without fixing.
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/509
I am not sure that why it is not admitted.
You may feel that it does not matter because you may edit the Bootstrapping logic in the RPM spec file manually.
But in my case, I am one of the people who use the Bootsrapping logic actively.
There are 89 RPM packages that constitutes Ruby on Rails 5.0.
To build Ruby on Rails 5.0 completely from scratch, I have to build the packages total 103 times considering bootstrap.
I am trying to build those packages automatically by a tool [1] with a configuration file [2] for Ruby on Rails.
It is important to fix it due to that.
Fortunately today another guy Vit created new ticket for that.
So, if YOU like this proposal, please comment in below page of the ticket or reply here.
It is helpful for us to move this huge rock. I really want to fix it.
"I like it." comment please.
=> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/684
Thank you for your help.
[1] https://github.com/sclorg/rpm-list-builder
[2] https://github.com/sclorg/rhscl-rebuild-recipes/blob/master/ror.yml
Kind regards,
Jun Aruga
4 years, 11 months
Issues with blender dependencies
by Philipp Bartsch
Hey,
First up, I am not sure if this is the right place for reports like
this. If there is a better place please let me know.
Blender seems to to be linked to jemalloc but it is not installed as a
dependency.
```
$ # installing blender
$ sudo dnf install blender
[...]
$ blender
blender: error while loading shared libraries: libjemalloc.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
$ ldd $(which blender) | grep "not found"
libjemalloc.so.2 => not found
$ # installing missing jemalloc
$ sudo dnf install jemalloc
[...]
$ # blender now starts without issues
$ blender
```
Btw. I am running Fedora 28 on x86_64.
- Phil
5 years, 2 months
Packaging Static Libraries *please reconsider*
by Gene Hightower
From
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libr...>
== Packaging Static Libraries ==
“Packages including libraries SHOULD exclude static libs as far as
possible (eg by configuring with --disable-static). Applications
linking against libraries SHOULD link against shared libraries not
static versions.”
* I would like to suggest this advice be reconsidered *
The second guideline seems fine; a packaged application (executable)
SHOULD link against the shared/dynamic version of a system library.
But this second guideline does not need the first; and I can see
little reason for the first.
Since static libraries should end up in their own seperate *-static
packages, I see very little advantage in excluding them.
Linkers have always (since the dawn of dynamic linking) preferred
shared/dynamic libraries over static versions. The mere presence of a
libfoo.a file along side a libfoo.so file will have no effect on
executables created.
* Compelling reason for static libraries *
The ability for a developer using a Fedora system to create static
executables, or to link one or more libraries statically in an
otherwise dynamic executable, is a very useful capability.
There are many advantages to static executables.
Maybe this is all TL;DR so see:
<https://digilicious.com/static.html>
5 years, 2 months
Re: DRAFT: Change to Systemd Packaging Guidelines - Was Re: Services that shouldn't be started in the first place
by Gerald B. Cox
FESCo has decided to review this topic at their next meeting. I will hold
off submitting
another draft pending the results of that discussion.
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1918
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox(a)bzb.us> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "GBC" == Gerald B Cox <gbcox(a)bzb.us> writes:
>>
>> To me this doesn't make much sense in the context in which you have put
>> it. The existing hardware activation section is just this paragraph:
>> ...
>> I don't disagree with the idea behind what you're proposing, but the
>> hardware activation section is quite the wrong place to put it.
>>
>> It seems to me that a far more appropriate place would be in the
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices document
>>
> ...
>
> Completely agree. I'll make the changes and repost another draft via
> email.
>
> Thanks for you help Jason!
>
>
5 years, 3 months
DRAFT: Change to Systemd Packaging Guidelines - Was Re: Services that shouldn't be started in the first place
by Gerald B. Cox
I opened a fecso ticket here: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1918
and it was suggested it would be better handled via FPC - so I've created a
draft.
I would appreciate feedback before I created the FPC ticket.
Adding the following paragraph to the Hardware Activation section:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Gbcox/Packaging:Systemd#Hardware_acti...
===========
Enabling of a service by default must not be done unless provisions have
been made to ensure the required hardware actually exists; otherwise the
service can fail which will result in systemd entering a degraded state.
This can be accomplished by utilizing the conditional functionality of
systemd. If the capability to inquire about the specific condition does not
exist, you must request it be created and provide the necessary criteria.
If it is not possible to create a specific conditional systemd validation,
you may request an exception to this guideline until such time the
conditional functionality can be created.
===========
Some history here:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox(a)bzb.us> wrote:
> This isn't related to a service, but is throwing out an spurious error
> message. There is a patch but it hasn't made it's way
> yet into the Fedora kernel:
>
> rt_cmos registration error: rhbz#1568276
> Basically an error is being thrown because your system doesn't have
> battery backup. To their credit, it was quickly identified
> and patched. We now just have to wait for the patch to be applied.
>
> However these:
>
> The mcelog.service message is associated with rhbz#1166978
> The dbxtool.service message is associated with rhbz#1508808
> The rngd.service message is associated with rhbz#1490632
>
> At least for me are the result of services being enabled by default, that
> should never have been enabled for my
> environment.
>
> mcelog: I am using an AMD processor. This service only applies to Intel.
> dbxtool: I am not using SecureBoot. This service only applies to
> machines using SecureBoot.
> rngd: I am not using a machine that has a hardware RNG generator
>
> Again, if we are apparently so concerned about a streamlined user
> experience, why are we
> starting processes that aren't needed - and in fact are not appropriate
> for a particular environment,
> and then throwing out error messages which are spurious and confusing?
>
> In my case, this caused me to spend hours individually tracking down all
> these error messages
> to find out that there is nothing wrong with my environment. Instead the
> issue is these services
> are inappropriately started for EVERYBODY - and in one case have been
> languishing for years.
>
> Last time I checked, Fedora wasn't an Intel only, SecureBoot only,
> mandatory hardware RNG generator
> environment.
>
5 years, 3 months
Cleaning up old scriptlets
by Scott Talbert
I'm cleaning up some old scriptlets and have a few questions about whether
these are needed anymore:
1) /sbin/ldconfig is no longer needed after installation a shared
library in F28+, correct?
2) Is update-mime-database still needed after installing a file in
%{_datadir}/mime/packages/ ?
3) Is 'udevadm control --reload-rules' still needed after installing a
udev rules file?
Thanks,
Scott
5 years, 3 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2018-06-14 16:00 - 16:35 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 16:00:03 UTC. The full logs are
available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-06-14/fpc.2018-
06-14-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:04)
* Schedule (geppetto, 16:03:39)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedor
aproject.org/message/4PAJT5NW7SNYAJ7PIKGEBFJ72RGK5ONW/
(geppetto, 16:03:43)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/734 (mhroncok,
16:05:55)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/382 (mhroncok,
16:06:11)
* #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects (geppetto,
16:16:11)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots
lists the two permitted formats. (tibbs, 16:20:33)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 16:29:33)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/723 (mhroncok,
16:30:41)
Meeting ended at 16:35:39 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* tibbs (42)
* geppetto (38)
* mhroncok (24)
* decathorpe (20)
* zodbot (15)
* limburgher (14)
* redi (4)
* ignatenkobrain (3)
* mbooth (2)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
5 years, 3 months
