Re: %lua_requires behaves differently in F33+
Aug 30, 2020 02:04:36 Miro Hrončok : Establish a FAS group for "Lua provenpackagers". Make sure the name it not to be confused with the Lua SIG, but note that the FAS group usually needs to be called ...-sig. I'd go with lua-packagres-sig or lua-maintainers-sig. Get it a mailing list needed for Bugzilla, e.g. lua-packagres-sig@lists. Don't mention it anywhere :) Well, it is mentioned here :) I'll go with packagers. lua-maintainers-sig is too close to the lua-maintainers@ email alias for those with commit access to the lia RPM. Thanks! -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keybase.io/michel_slm chat via email: https://delta.chat/ GPG key: 5DCE 2E7E 9C3B 1CFF D335 C1D7 8B22 9D2F 7CCC 04F2 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
Re: %lua_requires behaves differently in F33+
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 11:04 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 30. 08. 20 4:07, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > Quick question: for Python there's both python-devel and python-sig -- > > this seems overkill for Lua, right? Would starting lua@lists be enough? > > Not only it is overkill, but it brings problems. > For the story, see this ticket: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5478 > > tl;dr the python-devel list is open to anybody >the python-sig is a private (bugzilla mostly) list for the packaging > group >people are confused why cannot they see the python-sig list >even when they are members of the Python SIG > > For a new SIG I'd do the following: > > Establish a FAS group for "Lua provenpackagers". Make sure the name it not to > be > confused with the Lua SIG, but note that the FAS group usually needs to be > called ...-sig. I'd go with lua-packagres-sig or lua-maintainers-sig. Get it a > mailing list needed for Bugzilla, e.g. lua-packagres-sig@lists. Don't mention > it > anywhere :) > > Establish a general mailing list about Lua. Most likely lua@lists. Mention it > everywhere. > > > (Also, I couldn't find documentation on starting a new mailing list. > > Presumably an Infra pagure ticket?) > > Yes. You can look at the ticket I opened for creating the @java-maint-sig group and mailing list for inspiration :) https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8902 We also have two mailing lists like python - java-devel@lists is the old list, for general and public discussion, and java-maint-sig@lists is the new private list for the group's bugzilla account. Fabio ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
Re: %lua_requires behaves differently in F33+
On 30. 08. 20 4:07, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: Quick question: for Python there's both python-devel and python-sig -- this seems overkill for Lua, right? Would starting lua@lists be enough? Not only it is overkill, but it brings problems. For the story, see this ticket: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5478 tl;dr the python-devel list is open to anybody the python-sig is a private (bugzilla mostly) list for the packaging group people are confused why cannot they see the python-sig list even when they are members of the Python SIG For a new SIG I'd do the following: Establish a FAS group for "Lua provenpackagers". Make sure the name it not to be confused with the Lua SIG, but note that the FAS group usually needs to be called ...-sig. I'd go with lua-packagres-sig or lua-maintainers-sig. Get it a mailing list needed for Bugzilla, e.g. lua-packagres-sig@lists. Don't mention it anywhere :) Establish a general mailing list about Lua. Most likely lua@lists. Mention it everywhere. (Also, I couldn't find documentation on starting a new mailing list. Presumably an Infra pagure ticket?) Yes. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
Re: %lua_requires behaves differently in F33+
On Sat, 2020-08-29 at 19:16 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 29. 08. 20 4:43, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > - I'll refactor lua in Fedora so lua-devel pulls in lua-rpm-macros > > rather than shipping macros.lua, then enable shipping macros.lua in > > lua-rpm-macros (right now it's excluded on Fedora to avoid file > > conflicts) > > Please make it conditional on rpm-build. That way, Lua developers not > interested > in RPM packaging won't get unneeded packages. > Definitely. Right now anyone pulling in lua-devel gets the macros which is not ideal. > See python3-devel: > > Requires: (python3-rpm-macros if rpm-build) > Yup, I've been borrowing liberally from the Python rpm-macros package (and the updated packaging guideline I'm working on is also liberally borrowing from the Python guidelines. Thanks for this pointer though, I've not started looking at python-devel yet! > (BTW count me in for the SIG) > Will do, thanks for the interest! I figured some core developers will be interested given how critical some Lua scripts are for packaging. Quick question: for Python there's both python-devel and python-sig -- this seems overkill for Lua, right? Would starting lua@lists be enough? (Also, I couldn't find documentation on starting a new mailing list. Presumably an Infra pagure ticket?) Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keyoxide.org/mic...@michel-slm.name chat via email: https://delta.chat/ GPG key: 5DCE 2E7E 9C3B 1CFF D335 C1D7 8B22 9D2F 7CCC 04F2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
Re: %lua_requires behaves differently in F33+
On 29. 08. 20 4:43, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: - I'll refactor lua in Fedora so lua-devel pulls in lua-rpm-macros rather than shipping macros.lua, then enable shipping macros.lua in lua-rpm-macros (right now it's excluded on Fedora to avoid file conflicts) Please make it conditional on rpm-build. That way, Lua developers not interested in RPM packaging won't get unneeded packages. See python3-devel: Requires: (python3-rpm-macros if rpm-build) (BTW count me in for the SIG) -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
Re: %lua_requires behaves differently in F33+
On 29. 08. 20 3:36, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: Somehow this seems to be automatically applied on Fedora 33 and above -- without adding any manual require on lua(abi) Yes, this is done by the automatic dependency generator in Fedora 33+: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua/pull-request/3 It is written in Lua (ha!), so it requires RPM 4.16+ (for parametric dependency generators). It could be backported to Fedora 31/32 if rewritten as a Shell script. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
Re: %lua_requires behaves differently in F33+
On Fri, 2020-08-28 at 18:56 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-08-28 at 18:36 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Björn added some useful Lua packaging macros in
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447324
> >
> > One of them, %lua_requires, adds a dependency on either `lua(abi) =
> > %{lua_version}` or, on EL6 and below, on lua >= current version and
> > lua
> > < next version.
> >
...
> > PS Björn -- we should consider moving the macros out of lua-devel
> > and
> > into lua-rpm-macros, that lua-devel then depends on. That will fix
> > the
> > inability to get these macros out to EPEL6 and EPEL7 - on those,
> > lua
> > packages can just BR the macro package directly.
> >
> So having lua-rpm-macros with potentially a lua-srpm-macros would
> help
> here.
>
I've created a review request for the proposed new macro package here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873676
If this is accepted:
- we can immediately branch and ship this for EL6 and EL7 so Lua
packages for those releases can use macros
- I'll get redhat-rpm-config to pull in lua-srpm-macros, the same way
it pulls in other *-srpm-macros packages
- I'll refactor lua in Fedora so lua-devel pulls in lua-rpm-macros
rather than shipping macros.lua, then enable shipping macros.lua in
lua-rpm-macros (right now it's excluded on Fedora to avoid file
conflicts)
I'll also look at creating an official SIG including having a mailing
list.
Thanks,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/mic...@michel-slm.name
chat via email: https://delta.chat/
GPG key: 5DCE 2E7E 9C3B 1CFF D335 C1D7 8B22 9D2F 7CCC 04F2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
Re: %lua_requires behaves differently in F33+
On Fri, 2020-08-28 at 18:36 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Björn added some useful Lua packaging macros in
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447324
>
> One of them, %lua_requires, adds a dependency on either `lua(abi) =
> %{lua_version}` or, on EL6 and below, on lua >= current version and
> lua
> < next version.
>
> Somehow this seems to be automatically applied on Fedora 33 and above
> -- without adding any manual require on lua(abi)
>
> e.g. lua-lunitx on Fedora 33
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0
>
> on Fedora 32, though, the macro is not automatically invoked (so the
> update below is bad and I need to redo it)
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9074133de4
>
> In fact, trying to use %lua_requires does not seem to work, with and
> without curly braces:
>
> error: line 15: Unknown tag: %lua_requires
> error: line 15: Unknown tag: %{lua_requires}
>
Partially answering this point: this is because %lua_requires is not
available on the system where rpmbuild -bs was invoked to create the
SRPM.
Some languages (e.g. Python) ship $LANG-srpm-macros packages that are
pulled in by redhat-rpm-config to address this.
> PS Björn -- we should consider moving the macros out of lua-devel and
> into lua-rpm-macros, that lua-devel then depends on. That will fix
> the
> inability to get these macros out to EPEL6 and EPEL7 - on those, lua
> packages can just BR the macro package directly.
>
So having lua-rpm-macros with potentially a lua-srpm-macros would help
here.
But this won't even be needed if we can figure out how %lua_requires
get triggered on Fedora 33+ and have it work that way on older releases
too.
Thanks,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/mic...@michel-slm.name
chat via email: https://delta.chat/
GPG key: 5DCE 2E7E 9C3B 1CFF D335 C1D7 8B22 9D2F 7CCC 04F2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
%lua_requires behaves differently in F33+
Hi,
Björn added some useful Lua packaging macros in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447324
One of them, %lua_requires, adds a dependency on either `lua(abi) =
%{lua_version}` or, on EL6 and below, on lua >= current version and lua
< next version.
Somehow this seems to be automatically applied on Fedora 33 and above
-- without adding any manual require on lua(abi)
e.g. lua-lunitx on Fedora 33
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0
on Fedora 32, though, the macro is not automatically invoked (so the
update below is bad and I need to redo it)
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9074133de4
In fact, trying to use %lua_requires does not seem to work, with and
without curly braces:
error: line 15: Unknown tag: %lua_requires
error: line 15: Unknown tag: %{lua_requires}
Could someone help explain these two behaviors? I'm working on resuming
the Lua packaging draft so I want to have a canonical example on how
the macros are supposed to be used.
PS Björn -- we should consider moving the macros out of lua-devel and
into lua-rpm-macros, that lua-devel then depends on. That will fix the
inability to get these macros out to EPEL6 and EPEL7 - on those, lua
packages can just BR the macro package directly.
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/mic...@michel-slm.name
chat via email: https://delta.chat/
GPG key: 5DCE 2E7E 9C3B 1CFF D335 C1D7 8B22 9D2F 7CCC 04F2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
