February 2022 - packaging - Fedora Mailing-Lists

by Brad Bell

During the execution of fedpkg mockbuild I am getting the following error message (and do not know what I should do about it) ? ... snip ... (135/136): python3-libs-3.10.2-3.fc36.x86_64.rp 3.6 MB/s | 7.4 MB 00:02 (136/136): zlib-1.2.11-31.fc36.x86_64.rpm 834 kB/s | 91 kB 00:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 5.2 MB/s | 51 MB 00:09 fedora 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00 Importing GPG key 0x38AB71F4: Userid : "Fedora (36) <fedora-36-primary(a)fedoraproject.org>" Fingerprint: 53DE D2CB 922D 8B8D 9E63 FD18 999F 7CBF 38AB 71F4 From : /usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary Key imported successfully fedora 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00 GPG key at file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary (0x38AB71F4) is already installed fedora 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00 Importing GPG key 0x9867C58F: Userid : "Fedora (35) <fedora-35-primary(a)fedoraproject.org>" Fingerprint: 787E A6AE 1147 EEE5 6C40 B30C DB46 3971 9867 C58F From : /usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-35-primary Key imported successfully Import of key(s) didn't help, wrong key(s)? Public key for alternatives-1.19-2.fc36.x86_64.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: alternatives-1.19-2.fc36.x86_64 GPG Keys are configured as: file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary, file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary, file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-35-primary Public key for audit-libs-3.0.7-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: audit-libs-3.0.7-1.fc36.x86_64 GPG Keys are configured as: file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary, file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary, file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-35-primary Public key for basesystem-11-13.fc36.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: basesystem-11-13.fc36.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary, file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary, file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-35-primary Public key for bash-5.1.16-2.fc36.x86_64.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: bash-5.1.16-2.fc36.x86_64 GPG Keys are configured as: file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary, file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-36-primary, file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-35-primary Public key for bzip2-libs-1.0.8-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm is not installed. Failing pac ... snip ...

1 year, 7 months

2
1
0 / 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2022-02-10 17:00 UTC)

by James Antill

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2022-02-10 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2022-02-10 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2022-02-10 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2022-02-10 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2022-02-10 17:00 UTC UTC 2022-02-10 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2022-02-10 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2022-02-10 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2022-02-11 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2022-02-11 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2022-02-11 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2022-02-11 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 #topic #1159 Ban use of %configure in %prep .fpc 1159 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1159 = 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 #topic #pr-1144 Weak deps. on subpkgs. MUST NOT be fully versioned https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1144 #topic #pr-1157 Drop redundant Source and Patch numbers https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1157 = 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, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: font copies in sphinx generated documentation

by Petr Menšík

I prefer much more HTML documentation than PDF. While I try to make PDF also available, HTML is more useful in offline situations, on a train for example. On 2/8/22 15:18, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:51:35PM +0100, Petr Menšík wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I maintain bind package, which generates html documentation using sphinx >> and sphinx_rtd_theme. I admit this format is quite popular. Once I have >> noticed that bind-doc package is quite big. When looking why, I have >> found not a small number of static copies were generated by >> documentation process. >> >> If I remember correctly, fonts are allowed to be shipped only by font >> packages. Not only sphinx packages ships static copies of javascript >> underscore and jquery, but it seems every such package includes also set >> of fonts contained in its documentation. > Perhaps I'm mis-interpreting the guidelines, but I don't feel > like the font packaging rules should apply in this case. When > we describe the rules for packaging fonts, I feel like that was > related to fonts that are to be installed for shared usage. > ie stuff going into /usr/share/fonts should be provided by a > fonts-xxx package, not as a side effect of some other package. I admit I thought fonts are allowed to be packaged ONLY in fonts package and should be reused otherwise. That may not be required. > The fonts that get copied/around embedded in documentation are > for private usage by only that documentation. Any shared docs > generator tools would ideally pull their fonts from common source, > but whatever they do for output we should just accept. It is not > a sane use of resources to expect package maintainers to hack the > generated docs to change how they deal with fonts. Sphinx is just > one docs tool, there are many other tools, often written just to > suit the one app in question. > > Regards, > Daniel Thanks to Ben Beasley for pointing relevant thread in packaging list, it revealed the problem is not primary about size wasted by repeated copies of static content. Especially fonts are included without any hint of original license. It is non-trivial to obtain original data license and I am certain most packages ignores it instead of following packaging guidelines precisely. I found there are python-sphinx-doc and python-sphinx_rtd_theme-doc, which are generated by their respective generators. I compared their contents: diff -ru /usr/share/doc/python-sphinx-doc/html/_static/ /usr/share/doc/python-sphinx_rtd_theme-doc/html/_static/ That revealed most of files are not modified template, but exact copy. Just documentation_options.js and pygments.css seems to be generated and modified. Could we perhaps create python-sphinx-common package, which would put common data to /usr/share/doc/python-sphinx-common/_static/ for example. Then we could make a script for packagers to convert bundled copies to links. sphinx-package make-shared <path-to-generated-doc-dir> Such script would remove copies and create relative symlinks to /usr/share/doc/python-sphinx-common/_static/ content directory. Packager would then just ensure his doc package Requires: python-sphinx-common package. Harder work would be done by sphinx packager, which would ensure common package has all needed Requires: to fonts or js-jquery, js-underline or similar. He or she would make sure those files stay in single path and point to minimized or normal from original js library. Also would ensure they do not depend on python version for example. Strange thing is, jquery bundled in sphinx package is more recent than matching js-jquery version in f35. Difference is minimal, but they are not the same. Opposite situation is with js-underline, which is much higher version in js-underline than the one bundled in sphinx. Even original packages do not Provides: bundled(js-jquery) from built doc package. If self-contained copy were required, it might not be so hard to prepare also sphinx-package make-static action, which would dereference symlinks and replace them with hard link if possible, a file copy otherwise. sphinx_rtd_theme-package might specialize and extend copied list of files. It would have its own common subpackage with correct dependencies. I think such system would allow proper licensing, because it would point to original package with its well specified license. It would not work great in case of subdirectories mounted somewhere else. Script converting shared links to static copies should make it reasonably simple to create a workaround. I think that might solve both repeated bundling of JS libraries and fonts and save visible amount of space. I admit I am not maintainer of sphinx nor rtd_theme, so most of work would be done outside of my packages. Is FESCO okay with bundled javascript libraries in similar packages? Regards, Petr -- Petr Menšík Software Engineer Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/ email: pemensik(a)redhat.com PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB

1 year, 7 months

3
4
0 / 0

Restricting a build to one arch

by Brad Bell

I am having trouble with a build on the ppc64le arch. I do not have such a machine for testing so that only way I can see to debug it is to try patches in the spec file that print diagnostic output. There is no point in running these tests on all the arch values, only the one that is failing. How do I do this ?

1 year, 7 months

4
4
0 / 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2022-02-03 17:00 UTC)

by James Antill

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2022-02-03 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2022-02-03 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2022-02-03 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2022-02-03 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2022-02-03 17:00 UTC UTC 2022-02-03 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2022-02-03 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2022-02-03 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2022-02-04 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2022-02-04 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2022-02-04 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2022-02-04 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 #topic #pr-1144 Weak deps. on subpkgs. MUST NOT be fully versioned https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1144 = New Issues = #topic #1159 Ban use of %configure in %prep .fpc 1159 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1159 = New Pull Requests = #topic #pr-1157 Drop redundant Source and Patch numbers https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1157 = 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, 7 months

3
2
0 / 0

Re: Announcing LLVM Snapshot Packages for Fedora Linux

by Konrad Kleine

Davide, thank you for your interest in this. May I ask what plans you have using it for? We're investigating an integration into CentOS Stream. Regards Konrad On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:55, Davide Cavalca via devel < devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 12:13 +0200, Konrad Kleine wrote: > > Dear Fedora packagers, developers and users, > > > > we have some good news for you: > > > > We are beginning to build nightly snapshot packages of LLVM for the > > latest > > versions of Fedora Linux (currently 34, 35 and rawhide) for a growing > > list of > > architectures. > > > > You can grab them here: > > > > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/fedora-llvm-team/llvm-snapshots/ > > This is excellent, thanks for putting it together! Would you be open to > adding builds for EPEL and CentOS Stream? I saw some preliminary work > in that direction in > > https://github.com/kwk/llvm-daily-fedora-rpms/commit/cc9d02dc300aeed583cc... > but it was later reverted. I'd be happy to help with testing that if > needed (also adding the EPEL list in case other folks are interested). > > Cheers > Davide > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure >

1 year, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging February 2022