gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.extras.packaging

[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. :-)

[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

[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

[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

[Fedora-packaging] detailed descriptions of the categories?

Christopher Howard — 2012-05-24T00:00:25

Is there a document somewhere that provides a description of each of the
rpm categories? I.e., describing what a software package must do in
order to qualify to be put in that category? I'm creating packages for
some of my software, but it seems like it could fit in three different
categories. (The categories names are quite vague anyway.)

[Fedora-packaging] what do u think about package this owncloud

Adrian Alves — 2012-05-23T13:58:45

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

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

Brendan Jones — 2012-05-23T12:59:34

Hi all,

I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving 
a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion 
for some time.

The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer), 
software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin.
Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time 
flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using 
audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we 
rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict: 
with Fedora's qtractor.

The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version 
silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.

One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename 
the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use 
alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts

Is this reasonable?

regards,

Brendan

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cg

[Fedora-packaging] Manpages using %doc

Tomas Radej — 2012-05-16T12:12:52

Hi,

Is it possible for man pages to use the %doc macro in the %files section in a spec file? In Guidelines, there's no explicit mention of it, and I haven't found a package having this behavior. However, I am reviewing spacewalk-pylint ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800899 ), which does this:

%files
%doc %{_mandir}/man8/spacewalk-pylint.8*

Can you please give me a stance on that? 

Thank you,

[Fedora-packaging] Single review request for multiple packages

Simone Caronni — 2012-05-10T07:35:19

Hello,

I have one question. I would like to submit a review request for Guacamole,
an HTML5 vnc and rdp client.

The software itself is already packaged in separate small libraries and
tools for Fedora:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/guacamole/files/current/source/
http://guac-dev.org/Fedora%20Install%20Instructions

Since all the pieces taken alone are quite useless, should I fill a review
request for all the packages in one singular review or should I fill
multiple reviews requests, one for each piece?

Thanks,
--Simone

[Fedora-packaging] Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - 2012-05-09

Tom Callaway — 2012-05-09T16:59:26

The Fedora Packaging Committee met at its regular day (Wednesday) and
time (1600 UTC).

Logs from the meeting can be found here:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-05-09/fpc.2012-05-09-15.58.log.html

Minutes from the meeting can be found here:
HTML:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-05-09/fpc.2012-05-09-15.58.html

TXT:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-05-09/fpc.2012-05-09-15.58.txt

As a reminder, the Fedora Packaging Committee meets publicly and
encourages community participation. Anyone can submit a draft of new
guidelines or changes to existing guidelines (or even bundling
exceptions) by following the process documented here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedure

~tom

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

[Fedora-packaging] packaging a library

Christopher Howard — 2012-05-07T17:36:25

Hey guys, I'm guessing that packaging a library must be a somewhat
different process than packaging other software (because a library and a
devel package must be produced), but I am not clear on what those
differences are. I.e, what special information does the SPEC file
require? Are the rpmbuild commands any different?

I'd be glad to be pointed to the correct documentation. There didn't
seem to be a section covering this in the Fedora RPM guide.

[Fedora-packaging] Reusing the same git module for different compatversions?

Michel Alexandre Salim — 2012-05-04T10:47:34

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

Is it permissible to use a single compat package to provide different
'compat' binary packages on different Fedora releases?

The specific use case is for Vala: our Fedora packaging now allows for
parallel installation; you already can rebuild and install Vala
packages with different API levels side by side.

Vala upstream tends to create new API releases quite often, however,
and given that sometimes packages stop compiling against the newer
API, providing API-specific compatibility versions seems to be a lot
of work (and the package would have to be retired as soon as the
targeted release is EOLed).

Does the FPC allow having a single 'compat-vala' Git module, that
would target the API level one lower than the one shipped in the main
vala package, for every supported Fedora release? The package will be
very similar to the main vala one and changes can just be
cherry-picked, so maintenance is no problem.

Thanks,

- -- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Pr

[Fedora-packaging] BuildError: mismatch when analyzing $PACKAGE

Darryl L. Pierce — 2012-05-01T13:43:26

I've built my newly approved package and am hitting this strange
problem.

I am able to build the Fedora 17 and Rawhide without a problem. But on
Fedora 16 the build [1] fails with the error in $SUBJECT shows up:

BuildError: mismatch when analyzing rubygem-qpid-doc-0.16.0-10.fc16.noarch.rpm

The output [2] shows that the filenames for the generated rdoc files are
different between i686 and x86_64 platforms. Since these filenames are a
function of the gem install and are not under the control of my gem, I
have no idea how I would fix this error or get past it.

Any help or suggestions on what to do?


[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4039497

[2]
BuildError: mismatch when analyzing
rubygem-qpid-doc-0.16.0-10.fc16.noarch.rpm, rpmdiff output was:
added /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/qpid-0.16.0/rdoc/classes/Qpid/Messaging/Address.src/M000016.html
added /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/qpid-0.16.0/rdoc/classes/Qpid/Messaging/Address.src/M000017.html
added /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/qpid-0.16.0/rdoc/

[Fedora-packaging] should I include tests in the package?

Germán A. Racca — 2012-04-30T13:50:40

Hi list:

I'm the packager of APLpy: http://aplpy.github.com/

I'm going to update it to a new version, which comes with a set of 
tests, but I'm not sure about what to do with them. I asked upstream and 
the answer is:

"The tests are there for us to diagnose any issues related to specific
dependency versions and platforms, and to make sure that we don't
break anything when making changes. It would be useful if you include
them so that we can ask users to run them if they are having issues we
can't reproduce, but you don't need to run the tests as part of the
build/setup."

I'm still not sure. Should I include them in the package?

Have a nice day,
Germán.

[Fedora-packaging] Extending the Static Library Packaging Guidelines to cover inline/template code

Michael Schwendt — 2012-04-28T09:57:04

What does the Packaging Committee think about the following?

[...]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/759823  is the review request for libkdtree++

That is a C++ template container implementation, which does not build a
shared library file to link with, but ships only C++ templates in header
files.

The resulting -devel package needs to be handled in the same way than
a -static library package. Whenever there are important fixes in the
templates, dependencies may need to be rebuilt. Not limited to security
vulnerabilities. Any bug-fixes in the template implementation would only
propagate to applications when rebuilding the application packages.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] signing

Christopher Howard — 2012-04-23T18:54:36

I build my RPMs on one system but GPG sign them on another, which seems
to work fine with the rpmsign command. I was just wondering: is it
customary to sign just the source RPM, or both the source and binary
RPMs? Does it hurt anything to sign both?

[Fedora-packaging] games packages / manual installation

Christopher Howard — 2012-04-22T03:04:00

Hi. This is my first post to this list. I'm trying to create my first
RPM, and I have some questions. (I hope this is the right place!) All my
previous packaging experience is with debs, so you'll forgive me if I
compare & contrast somewhat with the Debian process.

I should note: my source package is wrapped in autotools and should be
fully compatible with the usual --configure options.

1) My package is a game; does Fedora require games to be installed in
/usr/games like some distros do? (Debian also requires them to be put in
the games group.) If so, how should I adjust the my spec file so this is
done properly?

2) I have a desktop icon file that needs to be installed, but is not
installed automatically by "make install". Should I just use the
"install" command directly in the spec file, or is there some more
proper way to go about it? Currently I have this in the spec file
(haven't actually tested it yet):

code:
--------
desktop-file-install \
--dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \
gfifteen.deskt

[Fedora-packaging] Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - 2012-04-18

Tom Callaway — 2012-04-18T16:57:01

The Fedora Packaging Committee met at its regular day (Tuesday) and time
(1600 UTC).

Logs from the meeting can be found here:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-04-18/fpc.2012-04-18-16.01.log.html

Minutes from the meeting can be found here:
HTML:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-04-18/fpc.2012-04-18-16.01.html
TXT:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-04-18/fpc.2012-04-18-16.01.txt

As a reminder, the Fedora Packaging Committee meets publicly and
encourages community participation. Anyone can submit a draft of new
guidelines or changes to existing guidelines (or even bundling
exceptions) by following the process documented here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedure

~tom

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