Re: Package Question

[Neal Gompa]

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Steve Dickson  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
> upstream tar balls? Basically have
>
> Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
> Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar
>
> Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.
>
> Before do the work I want to make sure I'm not
> breaking violating any package rules. I did look
> around and didn't see anything addressing this.
>

Personally, I'm not a fan of it. But it does happen quite a lot...

> If this is kosher, are there any examples of other
> packages doing this...
>

PackageKit did this for Fedora 25 to include libdnf for the
PackageKit-Dnf backend before libdnf was introduced into the
distribution in Fedora 26.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Steve Dickson]

Thanks for all the input... very interesting.

But I decide to go a head can create a new package
which eliminates all the questions about lifecycles
dependencies, licenses, etc 

Again, thanks for all the input!

steved.

On 01/08/2018 12:21 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different 
> upstream tar balls? Basically have 
> 
> Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
> Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar
> 
> Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.
> 
> Before do the work I want to make sure I'm not
> breaking violating any package rules. I did look
> around and didn't see anything addressing this.
> 
> If this is kosher, are there any examples of other
> packages doing this... 
> 
> tia,
> 
> steved. 
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 12:21 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different 
> upstream tar balls? Basically have 
> 
> Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
> Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar
> 
> Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.

Just to state something explicitly that others have mentioned in
passing: you do not have to do this by hand, RPM provides extensive
support for this kind of scenario. Maximum RPM is still the best doc I
know of for this kind of stuff:

http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-specref-macros.html

Specifically, you'll want to look at -b and -a, and the examples of how
each is used.

As others have said, this isn't *necessarily* "a problem" and there are
several cases of existing packages that do it, but without further
details, no-one can give you an informed opinion on whether it makes
sense to do things this way in your specific case.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 8.1.2018 v 18:21 Steve Dickson napsal(a):
> Hello,
> 
> Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different 
> upstream tar balls? Basically have 
> 
> Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
> Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar
> 
> Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.
> 
> Before do the work I want to make sure I'm not
> breaking violating any package rules. I did look
> around and didn't see anything addressing this.
> 
> If this is kosher, are there any examples of other
> packages doing this... 

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-ancestry/blob/master/f/rubygem-ancestry.spec
Source0 is upstream gem
Source1 is git snapshot with tests which are not in gem.

Miroslav
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Paul Howarth]

On 2018-01-08 17:21, Steve Dickson wrote:

Hello,

Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
upstream tar balls? Basically have

Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar

Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.

Before do the work I want to make sure I'm not
breaking violating any package rules. I did look
around and didn't see anything addressing this.

If this is kosher, are there any examples of other
packages doing this...


dovecot does this, the "other" tarball being dovecot-pigeonhole.

Paul.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Fernando Nasser  wrote:
> On 2018-01-08 3:07 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Fernando Nasser 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2018-01-08 12:21 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:

 Hello,

 Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
 upstream tar balls? Basically have

 Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
 Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar
>>
>> It happens all the time. Subversion used to do this a lot, when the
>> requirement for the "swig" library was more recent than what was in
>> Fedora. It also happens quite a lot for RHEL and EPEL packages, where
>> the necessary versions of various libraries may conflict with the
>> stable, standard library used by other tools.
>
>
> Hum... not sure if this was good form.  An important security fix may fail
> to be applied to this "hidden" library for one thing.

This is absolutely true. It's especially been necessary for various
EPEL packages, which may have requirements of more recent libraries.

> This is supposed to be handled by having a versioned package for the
> alternative library version that could then be used by this package (as
> opposed as the default Fedora version of it).

Yeah. It can be awkward to maintain, and the potential requirement is
precisely why the "%setup" macro in RPM is designed to support the
extraction of multiple tarballs in an arbitrary build layout: because
some packages are published as a set of multiple tarballs. "git", for
example, has often been built from the distinct git, git-html, and
git-manpages tarballs from upstream in order to avoid having to build
those other components and require all the build tools for
documentation on the local RPM build environment. Been there, done
that, publish tools for CentOS 6 and 7 for git-2.15 at
https://github.com/nkadel/git215-srpm/blob/master/git215.spec

"texlive" is a better example, since it has so many source tarballs
for different fonts from upstreamy. I count roughly 7000 distinct
Source tarballs listed in texlive.spec, Those *are* the Fedora system
component for those fonts, so it's a better example of where the usage
or multiple tarballs makes great sense sense.

Building distinct, internal libraries has been unusual to need
directly for Fedora, since Fedora tends to be near the bleeding edge
of software releases. But it's certainly happened on occasion,
especially if software needs to be backported to EPEL for RHEL and
CentOS use, or for for older versions of Fedora.

> This has similar problems as using the Maven shadow plugin in Fedora Java
> builds (which is AFAIK also discouraged).
>
> --Fernando
>
>
>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Fernando Nasser]

On 2018-01-08 3:07 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Fernando Nasser  wrote:

On 2018-01-08 12:21 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:

Hello,

Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
upstream tar balls? Basically have

Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar

It happens all the time. Subversion used to do this a lot, when the
requirement for the "swig" library was more recent than what was in
Fedora. It also happens quite a lot for RHEL and EPEL packages, where
the necessary versions of various libraries may conflict with the
stable, standard library used by other tools.


Hum... not sure if this was good form.  An important security fix may 
fail to be applied to this "hidden" library for one thing.


This is supposed to be handled by having a versioned package for the 
alternative library version that could then be used by this package (as 
opposed as the default Fedora version of it).


This has similar problems as using the Maven shadow plugin in Fedora 
Java builds (which is AFAIK also discouraged).


--Fernando



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Fernando Nasser  wrote:
> On 2018-01-08 12:21 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
>> upstream tar balls? Basically have
>>
>> Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
>> Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar

It happens all the time. Subversion used to do this a lot, when the
requirement for the "swig" library was more recent than what was in
Fedora. It also happens quite a lot for RHEL and EPEL packages, where
the necessary versions of various libraries may conflict with the
stable, standard library used by other tools.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Fernando Nasser]

On 2018-01-08 12:21 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:

Hello,

Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
upstream tar balls? Basically have

Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar


Important questions:

1) Are the lifecycles the same?

2) Can one be built independently of the other?

3) Are the licenses the same?  Is the IP owner the same?


I am just wondering if these cannot be split into two packages, built 
one after the other.



Maybe it is necessary to look into the specifics of the case, instead of 
trying to reason over a generic case.


What are you trying to package exactly?


Regards,
Fernando




Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.

Before do the work I want to make sure I'm not
breaking violating any package rules. I did look
around and didn't see anything addressing this.

If this is kosher, are there any examples of other
packages doing this...

tia,

steved.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[nicolas . mailhot]

Hi,

It can be done but it's a PITA to maintain and it's a very bad idea to do if 
the two packages are actually two different projects with different lifecycle 
expectations, legalities, etc

See the convolutions of the %setup macro

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Rob Crittenden]

Ben Rosser wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Rob Crittenden  wrote:
>> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2018 06:21 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
 Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
 upstream tar balls? Basically have

 Source0:http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
 Source1:http://server.com/package2/package2.tar

 Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.
>>>
>>> That's fairly common.  I don't particularly like it, but if it's the way
>>> upstream ships things, there isn't much choice.
>>
>> wine is an example of this. wine-staging is provided as a separate
>> tarball of patches that are applied before build.
> 
> This is also the recommended way to handle git submodules, according
> to the packaging guidelines.
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Submodules

It isn't a sub-module. It is a quasi-related project AIUI.

rob
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Ben Rosser]

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Rob Crittenden  wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 01/08/2018 06:21 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>> Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
>>> upstream tar balls? Basically have
>>>
>>> Source0:http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
>>> Source1:http://server.com/package2/package2.tar
>>>
>>> Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.
>>
>> That's fairly common.  I don't particularly like it, but if it's the way
>> upstream ships things, there isn't much choice.
>
> wine is an example of this. wine-staging is provided as a separate
> tarball of patches that are applied before build.

This is also the recommended way to handle git submodules, according
to the packaging guidelines.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Submodules

Ben
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Rob Crittenden]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/08/2018 06:21 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
>> upstream tar balls? Basically have
>>
>> Source0:http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
>> Source1:http://server.com/package2/package2.tar
>>
>> Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.
> 
> That's fairly common.  I don't particularly like it, but if it's the way
> upstream ships things, there isn't much choice.

wine is an example of this. wine-staging is provided as a separate
tarball of patches that are applied before build.

rob

> 
>> If this is kosher, are there any examples of other
>> packages doing this...
> 
> glibc did that until Fedora 20.  We eventually split out the files in
> the tarball into individual source files, which was easy enough in our
> case (and the files were Fedora-specific anyway).
> 
> Thanks,
> Florian
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[Florian Weimer]

On 01/08/2018 06:21 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:

Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
upstream tar balls? Basically have

Source0:http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
Source1:http://server.com/package2/package2.tar

Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.


That's fairly common.  I don't particularly like it, but if it's the way 
upstream ships things, there isn't much choice.



If this is kosher, are there any examples of other
packages doing this...


glibc did that until Fedora 20.  We eventually split out the files in 
the tarball into individual source files, which was easy enough in our 
case (and the files were Fedora-specific anyway).


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Question

[William Moreno]

2018-01-08 11:21 GMT-06:00 Steve Dickson :

> Hello,
>
> Is it a problem for a package to pull from two different
> upstream tar balls? Basically have
>
> Source0: http://server.com/package1/package1.tar
> Source1: http://server.com/package2/package2.tar
>
> Then I would, by hand, untar Source1 into Source0 directory.
>
> Before do the work I want to make sure I'm not
> breaking violating any package rules. I did look
> around and didn't see anything addressing this.
>
>
>
Patch the content of the package2 inside the package1 do not work the same?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package question: zanata-platform

[Ms Sanchez]

On 18/01/17 08:29, Ding Yi Chen wrote:

On version 4.0.0, we merge all the sub projects like parent, api, common, 
client and server
into zanata-platform.

At this point, we have no plan to pack server as RPM yet, because there too 
many dependencies to solve
(Maven and Java-scripts)

Should I continue to call it zanata-client, or rename them as zanata-platform?

Regards,




I think it should be zanata-platform despite it doesn't include server 
yet, but given it's more than just the client I think it makes more sense.


Cheers,
Sylvia


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org