https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpm_level_auto_release_and_changelog…
== 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-auto-…
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_macro…
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
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2019-08-15 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
================= Day: Thursday ==================
2019-08-15 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2019-08-15 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <--
2019-08-15 16:00 UTC UTC
2019-08-15 17:00 BST Europe/London
2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin
2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris
2019-08-15 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta
---------------- New Day: Friday -----------------
2019-08-16 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong
2019-08-16 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore
2019-08-16 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo
2019-08-16 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting
= Followups =
#topic #902 Cleanup & enhance spec files
.fpc 902
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/902
#topic #904 Caret versioning
.fpc 904
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/904
#topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable?
.fpc 907
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907
#topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check
.fpc 909
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909
#topic #914 Automatic R runtime dependencies
.fpc 914
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/914
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
report of the agenda items can be found at:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can:
* Reply to this e-mail
* File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee
* E-mail me directly
* 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.
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
Hi all,
I'm overhauling luarocks' packaging (TL;DR, it's the Lua equivalent of
Python's pip or Rust's cargo).
Previously it flipped from being a noarch package (because the files
shipped are pure Lua code) to arched (because it hardcoded some
settings based on the system it's built on).
With recent luarocks that's no longer necessary as it can auto-detect
the installed Lua environment (I added a little patch to make it prefer
/usr/lib64 if it is available).
This works well, but ... luarocks keeps a 'rocks tree' (basically a
record of which rocks are installed and their checksums):
```
$ luarocks config | grep ROCKS
ROCKS_TREE = "/usr/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.4",
```
The files here are mostly noarch but if the user compiles a binary
module it does record the checksum of the binary as well. e.g.
```
$ cat /usr/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.4/bit32/5.3.5.1-1/rock_manifest
rock_manifest = {
["bit32-5.3.5.1-1.rockspec"] = "63172097de28df84f5de587c25d866d0",
doc = {
LICENSE = "47a1db9761ff46e15d0f65fbc87d4bd5",
["README.md"] = "0f5f506e9b1697622bf4a2e0faeb1746"
},
lib = {
["bit32.so"] = "5b35079ba129529a30f6a7f9adba309e"
}
}
```
Would %{_var}/lib/luarocks be a better location for this? (since it's
in effect similar to /var/lib/rpm and /var/lib/dnf). Either that
location or /usr/lib would be fine for now.
If we ever want to, say, use luarocks to build lua module RPMs, this
might be a problem if we ever want 64-bit and 32-bit RPMs to be
installable. We can always get around it by stripping the rock
manifests though.
Thanks,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name
I would like to add the epel8 branch to my repository. When I try to, I get the following response:
>fedpkg request-branch epel8
Could not execute request_branch: The following error occurred while creating a new issue in Pagure:
Invalid or expired token. Please visit
https://pagure.io/settings#nav-api-tab
to get or renew your API token.
For invalid or expired token refer to "fedpkg request-repo -h" to set a token in your user
configuration.
When I visit the site it is not clear to me what I should do. Would someone please point me to the
documentation for this ?
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by geppetto at 17:00:04 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2021-01-21/fpc.2021-01-2…
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (geppetto, 17:00:04)
* Schedule (geppetto, 17:09:21)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject…
(geppetto, 17:09:25)
* #pr-1041 Use only .metainfo.xml in AppData guidelines (geppetto,
17:09:36)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1041
(geppetto, 17:09:42)
* ACTION: Use only .metainfo.xml in AppData guidelines (+1:5, 0:0,
-1:0) (geppetto, 17:15:12)
* Open Floor (geppetto, 17:15:20)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1026
(decathorpe, 17:17:43)
* ACTION: carlwgeorge Speak to EPEL steering committe about moving
wiki pages to antora (geppetto, 17:24:20)
Meeting ended at 17:36:20 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* Use only .metainfo.xml in AppData guidelines (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
* carlwgeorge Speak to EPEL steering committe about moving wiki pages to
antora
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* carlwgeorge
* carlwgeorge Speak to EPEL steering committe about moving wiki pages
to antora
* **UNASSIGNED**
* Use only .metainfo.xml in AppData guidelines (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* geppetto (31)
* tibbs (20)
* zodbot (17)
* ignatenkobrain (16)
* King_InuYasha (11)
* decathorpe (10)
* carlwgeorge (7)
* tstellar (4)
* limburgher (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2021-01-21 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
================= Day: Thursday ==================
2021-01-21 09:00 PST US/Pacific
2021-01-21 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <--
2021-01-21 17:00 GMT Europe/London
2021-01-21 17:00 UTC UTC
2021-01-21 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin
2021-01-21 18:00 CET Europe/Paris
2021-01-21 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta
---------------- New Day: Friday -----------------
2021-01-22 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong
2021-01-22 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore
2021-01-22 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo
2021-01-22 03:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting
= Followup Actions =
#topic #pr-814
* mhroncok
talk to authors again, having a working example might help a lot
#topic Open Floor
* decathorpe
look through non-meeting tickets, see if any are stuck/need to be discussed
= Followup Issues =
#topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable?
.fpc 907
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907
= Followup Pull Requests =
#topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines.
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814
= Pull Requests =
#topic #pr-1041 Use only .metainfo.xml in AppData guidelines
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1041
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
report of the agenda items can be found at:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can:
* Reply to this e-mail
* File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee
* E-mail me directly
* 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.
Greetings,
I am a new contributor to Fedora packaging. My actual target is to add
some applications I use but are not packaged yet. But since adding a new
package is quite complex and Fedora also places some requirements before
a contributor is allowed to do that, I have started learning by doing
some simpler tasks first.
I have been looking at various packages I use personally, trying to find
some things to improve. I noticed that the gpodder
<https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gpodder> package would benefit from
some work on its AppStream metadata. My first though was to simply make
it comply with the Packaging Guidelines: AppData
<https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/>
section in Fedora Docs. But, the instructions there lead to a setup that
is deprecated according to AppStream current specification
<https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html#se…>.
This is my first encounter with AppStream, but from the guidelines page
naming it seems that even the name has changed from AppData to AppStream
after the guidelines were written.
So the question is this: Should Fedora packages really follow the
guidance from /Packaging Guidelines: AppData/, or should that page be
updated?
Perhaps I should also explain what is wrong with the gpodder package:
Its spec file contains an inline /appdata.xml/ that is installed to
//usr/share/appdata/. However, since /appdata.xml/ was added, upstream
has started shipping its own AppStream file. That is also installed, but
to //usr/share/metainfo/, with a different file name, different
application id and diffrent content. Dropping the inline version and
installing only the upstream version seems clear enough, but to me it
seems like the Packaging Guidelines give bad advice on how to go about that.
Regards,
Otto Urpelainen