RPM-level auto release and changelog bumping - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal
by Ben Cotton
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpm_level_auto_release_and_changel...
== Summary ==
redhat-rpm-config will be updated so users of the auto framework get
automated release and changelog bumping.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:nim| Nicolas Mailhot]]
* Email: <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>
== Detailed Description ==
This is a system-wide change because all packages build with
redhat-rpm-config, but it only concerns packages that opted to use
this part of redhat-rpm-config (auto framework).
The change will make those packages auto-bump and auto-changelog at
the rpm level, in an infrastructure-independent way.
== Benefit to Fedora ==
Autobumping removes a huge packager shore and makes timestamping in
changelogs more reliable.
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: The feature is coded and works at the rpm level.
Unfortunately, mock filters away the srpms containing the bump state,
so it does not work in upper layers.
* Other developers: The feature requires buy-in by mock developers
(and probably koji developers) to lift the restrictions that block it
above the rpm level. Also, it requires a mechanism to pass the user
name and email that will be used in bumped changelogs (defining two
variables in ~/.rpmmacros is sufficient at rpm level)
* Mock issue: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/599
* Release engineering: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9567
* Policies and guidelines: maybe eventually if things work out on the
technical level
* FPC issue: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/998
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
This is a pure build tooling update, it changes how things are built
not what is built.
== How To Test ==
A redhat-rpm-config packages with the changes and some example
packages are available in
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/refactoring-forge-patches-aut...
Since the mock/copr layer is currently blocking the feature, you need
to install the redhat-rpm-config and forge macro packages available in
this repo locally. Afterwards you can take any of the example packages
in the repo and rebuild them with rpmbuild -ba to your heart content,
and see the releases bump and the changelogs being updated
accordingly.
To get beautiful changelogs, you also need to add
<pre>
%buildsys_name Your name
%buildsys_email Your email
</pre>
in ~/.rpmmacros
== User Experience ==
N/A Packager experience change only
== Dependencies ==
The change is a spin-off of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Patches_in_Forge_macros_-_Auto_mac...
Therefore, it depends on the success of that other change and will
probably need rebasing if the code in this other change evolves during
the redhat-rpm-config merge.
It also depends on mock / copr/ koji buy-in and changes, that may add
their own requirements.
== Contingency Plan ==
There is no contingency plan because the change will happen or not at all.
== Documentation ==
There is as much documentation as the average redhat-rpm-config change
(ie comments in the macro files themselves)
== Release Notes ==
N/A Packager productivity change only
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
1 month, 3 weeks
Odd problem with obsoletes in EPEL8
by Martin Jackson
Hello,
I'm having a problem I don't understand how to fix, and I would
appreciate some guidance. I'm maintaining nagios-plugins, which bundles
a number of different "check" plugins and has some metapackages that
include different subsets of those check plugins.
In the EL 8.2 release cycle, one of the dependencies of one of those
plugins was moved from EPEL into EL proper, which broke new installs of
that plugin and the -all metapackage. A user filed a bug, so as a
temporary workaround, I stopped building the plugin package with that
dependency (nagios-plugins-ssl_validity, and had that version
(nagios-plugins-2.3.3-3) obsolete the ssl_validity plugin, since leaving
it around caused it to want to keep the base package in conflict with
other packages that were upgrading.
Now that CentOS 8.2 is released, and the dependency is available, I've
issued an update
(https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-70bcfe5382)
that builds ssl_validity again, and also adds it back to the -all
subpackage. I can upgrade it sucessfully (which installs the
ssl_validity plugin again, as expected), but subsequent calls to dnf
upgrade give this error:
Obsoleting Packages
nagios-plugins.x86_64 2.3.3-3.el8 epel
nagios-plugins-ssl_validity.x86_64 2.3.3-4.el8 @epel-testing
nagios-plugins 2.3.3-3 is not installed anymore, and there are no
explicit Obsoletes: in the ssl_validity package. I'm not sure what
needs to be done here, but whatever it is I'm willing to make the
change. Also wondering if this is expected behavior.
Thanks,
Marty
1 year, 2 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (YYYY-MM-DD 16:00 - 17:10 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-1/2020-08-27/fpc.2020-08...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 16:00:03)
* Schedule (geppetto, 16:06:34)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproje...
(geppetto, 16:06:37)
* #pr-1011 Python guidelines updates (geppetto, 16:10:13)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1011
(geppetto, 16:10:13)
* ACTION: Merge pr-1011 Python guidelines updates (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
(geppetto, 16:19:46)
* #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro (geppetto, 16:19:59)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1013
(geppetto, 16:19:59)
* ACTION: Merge #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro
(+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:24:01)
* #pr-942 Recommend storing changelog entries in separate file.
(geppetto, 16:24:43)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/942
(geppetto, 16:24:44)
* ACTION: #pr-942 rejected … pretty much everyone doesn't like this
approach to solving the problem. Speak to pingu, sgallagh,
rpmbumpspec devs etc. (geppetto, 16:39:12)
* #977 Get new members? (geppetto, 16:46:49)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/977 (geppetto,
16:46:49)
* ACTION: Add carlwgeorge and King_InuYasha as new members (geppetto,
16:52:38)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 16:55:17)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Members
(mhroncok, 16:56:45)
Meeting ended at 17:08:20 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* Merge pr-1011 Python guidelines updates (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
* Merge #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro (+1:5, 0:0,
-1:0)
* #pr-942 rejected … pretty much everyone doesn't like this approach to
solving the problem. Speak to pingu, sgallagh, rpmbumpspec devs etc.
* Add carlwgeorge and King_InuYasha as new members
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* carlwgeorge
* Add carlwgeorge and King_InuYasha as new members
* King_InuYasha
* Add carlwgeorge and King_InuYasha as new members
* sgallagh
* #pr-942 rejected … pretty much everyone doesn't like this approach
to solving the problem. Speak to pingu, sgallagh, rpmbumpspec devs
etc.
* **UNASSIGNED**
* Merge pr-1011 Python guidelines updates (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
* Merge #pr-1013 Document py_reproducible_pyc_path macro (+1:5, 0:0,
-1:0)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* geppetto (84)
* King_InuYasha (70)
* mhroncok (38)
* tibbs (28)
* limburgher (27)
* decathorpe (24)
* zodbot (15)
* carlwgeorge (13)
* sgallagh (11)
* smooge (10)
* bcotton (4)
* defolos (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
2 years, 1 month
What is the best practice to use both gcc and clang flags macros in %check?
by Jun Aruga
In my case on rpms/simde, I want to compile the testing source in
"both" gcc and clang changing the toolchain macro in the %check
section.
I am seeing this file to use toolchain macro.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/macros...
> # %global toolchain clang
In this case what is the best practice to use %{optflags},
%{build_cflags}, %{build_cxxflags} macros?
Because after setting `%global toolchain clang` in the %check section,
these macros are empty.
Here is the simde.spec having both gcc and clang built test cases in
the%check section.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jaruga/rpms/simde/blob/wip/clang-flto-...
```
%check
...
echo "=== 1.2. tests on gcc with flags ==="
mkdir test/build-gcc-with-flags
pushd test/build-gcc-with-flags
CC=gcc CXX=g++ cmake \
-DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=ON \
-DCMAKE_C_FLAGS="%{build_cflags}" \
-DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="%{build_cxxflags}" \
..
...
%global toolchain clang
...
echo "=== 2.2. tests on clang with flags ==="
mkdir test/build-clang-with-flags
pushd test/build-clang-with-flags
CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake \
-DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=ON \
-DCMAKE_C_FLAGS="${build_cflags}" \ # <= ${build_cflags} is empty!
-DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="${build_cxxflags}" \ # <= ${build_cxxflags} is empty!
..
```
The scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48755502
Thanks.
--
Jun | He - His - Him
2 years, 2 months
