January 2022 - packaging - Fedora Mailing-Lists

Automatic virtual provides for RPM macros?

by Miro Hrončok

Hello, today at Nest, somebody said "unfortunately, there is no way to tell what package to install to get a particular RPM macro". I think that having an RPM provides generator for "rpm-macro(__python3)" or similar should be a fairly simple exercise. Would you folks consider that useful? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

6 months, 3 weeks

4
4
0 / 0

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 year, 1 month

12
23
0 / 0

Incorrect link in message from notifications@fedoraproject.org

by Brad Bell

I recently received the following form notifications(a)fedoraproject.org: Notification time stamped 2022-01-31 14:08:24 UTC bradbell pushed 2 commits to rpms/cppad (rawhide) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cppad/branch/rawhide When I select the link I get: The requested URL was not found on the server. Should 'branch/rawhide' be replaced by 'commits/rawhide'; i.e., is the following the intended link ? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cppad/commits/rawhide If this is an error, is this the right place to report it ?

1 year, 8 months

2
1
0 / 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2022-01-27 17:00 UTC)

by James Antill

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2022-01-27 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2022-01-27 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2022-01-27 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2022-01-27 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2022-01-27 17:00 UTC UTC 2022-01-27 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2022-01-27 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2022-01-27 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2022-01-28 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2022-01-28 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2022-01-28 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2022-01-28 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 = Followup Issues = #topic #886 Enable BRP for detecting RPATH .fpc 886 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 #topic #1132 Mark comments as scriplets for Sources (automation) .fpc 1132 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1132 #topic #1150 request for clarification wrt. base version / compat package naming .fpc 1150 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1150 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1045 WIP: Add discussion of macro names beginning with underscores. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1045 #topic #pr-1046 Improve separate test suite sourcing instructions https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1046 #topic #pr-1071 Overhaul the RPATH section of the guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1071 #topic #pr-1097 Use caret in Obsoletes to simplify https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1097 = New Pull Requests = #topic #pr-1152 Add BLAS/LAPACK guidelines https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1152 = 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.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[python] tox config file not found

by Iñaki Ucar

Hi, Do we have any spec dealing with poetry? I'm trying to package [1], but I'm stuck here: + /usr/bin/python3 -s /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_buildrequires.py --generate-extras --python3_pkgversion 3 -t Handling poetry>=1.1.4 from build-system.requires Requirement satisfied: poetry>=1.1.4 (installed: poetry 1.1.8) Handling tox-current-env >= 0.0.6 from tox itself Requirement satisfied: tox-current-env >= 0.0.6 (installed: tox-current-env 0.0.6) ERROR: tox config file (either pyproject.toml, tox.ini, setup.cfg) not found but the pyproject.toml file is certainly there. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks, Iñaki [1] https://github.com/firstlookmedia/dangerzone -- Iñaki Úcar

1 year, 8 months

2
2
0 / 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2022-01-20 17:00 UTC)

by James Antill

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2022-01-20 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2022-01-20 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2022-01-20 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2022-01-20 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2022-01-20 17:00 UTC UTC 2022-01-20 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2022-01-20 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2022-01-20 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2022-01-21 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2022-01-21 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2022-01-21 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2022-01-21 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 = Followup Issues = #topic #886 Enable BRP for detecting RPATH .fpc 886 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 #topic #1132 Mark comments as scriplets for Sources (automation) .fpc 1132 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1132 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1045 WIP: Add discussion of macro names beginning with underscores. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1045 #topic #pr-1046 Improve separate test suite sourcing instructions https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1046 #topic #pr-1071 Overhaul the RPATH section of the guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1071 #topic #pr-1097 Use caret in Obsoletes to simplify https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1097 = 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.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

Guidelines: Should numbered patches be replaced by unnumbered in most of our examples?

by Miro Hrončok

Hello, I've recently finally watched *Still packaging like it's 1999?* from DevConf.CZ 2020 by Florian Festi. One thing that I've learned is that for many years now, we can do: Patch: foo.patch Patch: bar.patch Patch: baz.patch Instead of the more traditional: Patch1: foo.patch Patch2: bar.patch Patch3: baz.patch The same applies to sources. Should we adapt our examples in the packaging guidelines to prefer this approach unless the patches/sources need to be referenced by their number in %prep? It seems simpler. It has been supported since RPM 4.15 (hence not yet on RHEL 8). -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

1 year, 8 months

4
5
0 / 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2022-01-13 17:00 UTC)

by James Antill

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2022-01-13 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2022-01-13 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2022-01-13 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2022-01-13 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2022-01-13 17:00 UTC UTC 2022-01-13 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2022-01-13 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2022-01-13 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2022-01-14 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2022-01-14 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2022-01-14 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2022-01-14 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 = Followup Issues = #topic #886 Enable BRP for detecting RPATH .fpc 886 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 #topic #1132 Mark comments as scriplets for Sources (automation) .fpc 1132 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1132 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1045 WIP: Add discussion of macro names beginning with underscores. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1045 #topic #pr-1046 Improve separate test suite sourcing instructions https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1046 #topic #pr-1071 Overhaul the RPATH section of the guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1071 #topic #pr-1097 Use caret in Obsoletes to simplify https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1097 = 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.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

SO versioning in the spec file

by Ian McInerney

Spurred off of the recent lxqt thread in devel (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...) that bumped the soname for another library in the stack without announcing that one, I looked in the packaging guidelines to see if there was anything about how to represent the soname version in the spec and didn't see anything. I know I have seen some mention on the devel list about using a global define to set the so version, and then using that in the %files section instead of a glob on the shared library so that an so version bump is caught at build time and errors it without packager intervention, but that doesn't appear to be listed in the packaging guidelines at all. What are people's thoughts on adding a section about handling so versions alongside the soname section? It say to use the global define/no glob method in the spec (although I haven't decided if I think it should be a SHOULD or a MUST criteria). I feel that could help reduce these unannounced breakages that seem to crop up and that are annoying to scramble to fix afterwards. Thoughts? Or did I overlook a place in the packaging guidelines that already discusses this? -Ian

1 year, 8 months

7
7
0 / 0

Thoughts on pyproject-rpm-macros and license files?

by Ben Beasley

I’m aware that pyproject-rpm-macros can handle license files in many cases[1]: > %pyproject_save_files can automatically mark license files with %license macro and language (*.mo) files with %lang macro and appropriate language code. Only license files declared via PEP 639 License-Field field are detected. PEP 639 is still a draft and can be changed in the future. (I also know that there are some packages where no license file is marked, or where additional license files are needed, and it’s best to verify with “rpm -qL -p …” before relying on this feature. That’s not at issue here.) In a package review, it was suggested that, even when pyproject_files includes a license file installed in the dist-info directory and marked with %license, an explicit installation of the license file with a relative path, such as > %license LICENSE.txt might still be needed—under the theory that the license file is supposed to be installed in /usr/share/licenses. The Licensing Guidelines simply say that %license must be used, and don’t mention /usr/share/licenses[2]. I’m wondering if this question has come up before and if anyone has insight into whether or not pyproject-rpm-macros’s license file support is intended to replace manual license file handling. – Ben Beasley [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...

1 year, 8 months

6
9
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging January 2022