gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.extras.packaging

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Can multiple packages built from same source?

Stanislav Ochotnicky — 2012-05-25T10:10:32

Quoting Lin Gao (2012-05-25 10:07:08)

Have you contacted ironjacamar maintainer? I assume ironjacamar produces
only some of the jars required by JBoss AS7, because building additional
jars would need more dependencies. In order to simplify packaging: these
were skipped.

I don't know the details, but I believe going for a subpackage approach
would be better. Getting in touch with ironjacamar maintainers is needed
in any case.

Or maybe I misunderstood and you say ironjacamar-standalone is meant to
be used without requiring several jboss packages? Even in that case a
subpackages could be done in a way to have simple dependencies for one
subpackage and main package just having subpackage in Requires.

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Can multiple packages built from same source?

Michael Schwendt — 2012-05-25T08:57:51


Would it not be feasible to build an ironjacamar-standalone subpackage
from the existing ironjacamar src.rpm package? Additional build-time
dependencies could lead to problems/conflicts or make the build process
more complicated if a single src.rpm were to be used.

I'm not aware of any policy that would disallow reusing a source archive
in multiple src.rpm packages in order to build something differently.

The reason to not build everything from within a single src.rpm could also
be that either of the builds may need to change more often (with regard to
bug-fixing/patching).  For example, some existing src.rpms build the
included source two times, once for GTK2 and a second time for GTK3, and
put the resulting builds in separate binary rpms. However, if either of
the builds required more maintenance, the updates for the other one would
be superfluous. Hence it could be more convenient to split into two
src.rpm packages (with the added risk that avoiding file conflicts becomes
more difficult).

[Fedora-packaging] Can multiple packages built from same source?

Lin Gao — 2012-05-25T08:07:08

Hi,

     We have a package already built in Fedora called: ironjacamar, 
which only produces several core jars used by JBoss AS 7. We also want 
to built a ironjacamar standalone environment which can make the 
ironjacamar running without JBoss AS 7 environment, but this standalone 
environment has different libraries than JBoss AS 7 has. So we plan to 
built a overall new package called: ironjacamar-standalone, which 
produces the ironjacamar standalone environment, it will use the same 
source as the package: ironjacamar uses.  I want to know if it is 
approved in Fedora?

[Fedora-packaging] Self Introduction

Lin Gao — 2012-05-25T07:50:50

Hi,

     I am new to Fedora community.

     I have 8+ years experiences on JavaEE related work. I joined JBoss 
team at Red Hat 18 months before, now I start to work for JBoss JCA team.

     I am happy to be able to contribute to Fedora community. :-)

Re: [Fedora-packaging] GNULib exception link on FPC trac

Praveen Kumar — 2012-05-25T03:43:27


Thanks, I am wondering, as guideline says we have to add "Provides:
bundled(<libname>) = <version>" but on wiki version info is not given
(according to ticket [0] it's already discussed and removed to avoid
confusion), but then how do we get version info for those libraries?

[0] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/174

Re: [Fedora-packaging] GNULib exception link on FPC trac

Toshio Kuratomi — 2012-05-24T21:49:03

https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/174

We just approved that a few weeks ago.  I've added it to the three copylib
library exceptions my memory thinks it applies to.

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] GNULib exception link on FPC trac

Praveen Kumar — 2012-05-24T17:22:41

Hi,

Few days back I got a bug report [0], according to "No bundled Library
packaging guideline [1]" we have to request on FPC track first  if it's not
granted but according to wiki [2] it's already granted. I am not able to
find the FPC granted link. Can I use wiki link only in the spec? if not can
someone provide the correct link.

[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821791
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
[2]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_exceptions

---
Praveen Kumar
http://fedoraproject.org/
http://kumar-pravin.blogspot.com
--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Re: [Fedora-packaging] opensmtpd - http://www.opensmtpd.org/

Michael Schwendt — 2012-05-24T15:14:19


This list is about technical questions related to packaging, about
the Packaging Guidelines, but not about package review trading or
package requests.

Please do move your messages to devel list.

Re: [Fedora-packaging] opensmtpd - http://www.opensmtpd.org/

Adrian Alves — 2012-05-24T15:03:10

Check this out:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Discussions
Discussions
Discussion and decisions can also take place on the mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org. The mailing list is open to the public.
To subscribe or view the archives, go to
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/.


packaging -- Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Regards, Adrian.-


On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt< at >gmail.com>wrote:

--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Single review request for multiple packages

Simone Caronni — 2012-05-24T14:49:37

Hello,

I'm a bit further in packaging the Guacamole web stack for Fedora.

On 10 May 2012 17:30, Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky< at >redhat.com> wrote:

I've packaged the first base component and created the review for it;
if someone which has Java packaging skills in Fedora would step in and
say something I would really appreciate it.

Here is the mail sent to the java-devel mailing list with the
introduction and status:

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2012-May/004411.html

Regards,
--Simone

Re: [Fedora-packaging] detailed descriptions of the categories?

Michael Schwendt — 2012-05-24T14:34:46


What "rpm categories" do you mean? I can only guess what that is.

Perhaps the "Group" tag? If so, some packages don't set it anymore. Others
use existing packages for inspiration.

Or perhaps you refer to the groups in the "comps.xml" file?
 -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Comps_SIG

Re: [Fedora-packaging] opensmtpd - http://www.opensmtpd.org/

Michael Schwendt — 2012-05-24T14:26:21


IMHO, "devel" list is the much more appropriate place where to
discuss a topic related to adding something to the Fedora
Package Collection:

  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Fedora-packaging] package: shrinkwrap-descriptors and arquillian

Lin Gao — 2012-05-24T13:49:38

Hi,

   Could you please someone can take a look at the new package requests: 
shrinkwrap-descriptors[1] and arquillian[2]?  Thank you very much!

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=824682
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=824838

[Fedora-packaging] opensmtpd - http://www.opensmtpd.org/

Adrian Alves — 2012-05-24T13:30:21

any body is working on this:
http://www.opensmtpd.org/

am about to package it.
just wondering

Regards, Adrian.-
--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Re: [Fedora-packaging] grive open source client for google drive

Christopher Meng — 2012-05-24T10:23:43

is it approved by official?

On Thursday, May 24, 2012, Adrian Alves wrote:

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora

Jonathan Dieter — 2012-05-24T10:21:08

I'm afraid I know very little about alternatives, so I'm not in the
position to give advice.  If I understand what Nicolas is saying,
alternatives make more sense than having two versions that conflict.

Jonathan
--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora

Brendan Jones — 2012-05-24T09:35:46

Sure - however we should still implement alternatives in the 
qtractor-freeworld package right?
(btw review is approved in Fedora already - although I've pulled the 
update for the moment)

--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora

Jonathan Dieter — 2012-05-24T09:13:25

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if I was implementing it,
I'd follow the following steps:

     1. Push qtractor-freeworld into RPM Fusion and have it obsolete
        qtractor
     2. Finish getting qtractor reviewed in Fedora
     3. A week or two after (1) happens (and *before* qtractor gets
        pushed to testing in Fedora), remove the obsoletes from
        qtractor-freeworld
     4. Build qtractor in Fedora

The advantage of this process is that most RPM Fusion qtractor users get
qtractor-freeworld automatically (and the longer the obsoletes is left
in, the more RPM Fusion users get qtractor-freeworld).

Jonathan
--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora

Brendan Jones — 2012-05-24T08:18:57

OK, I think I have a solution. We'll stick to the name qtractor in 
Fedora, do the rename in RPMFusion but implement alternatives there.

To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog / 
update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor 
and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired. 
Sound OK?
--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] gnome-shell-extension-updater for fedora

Adrian Alves — 2012-05-24T03:57:28

Am about to package this:
gnome-shell-extension-updater
https://github.com/eonpatapon/gnome-shell-extension-updater

Just wondering in case if somebody else is working on it
--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] grive open source client for google drive

Adrian Alves — 2012-05-24T03:37:08

Am about to package this:
grive open source client for google drive
http://match065.github.com/grive/

Just wondering in case if somebody else is working on it
--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging