Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:01 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 4.7.2018 v 12:18 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > What about just doing a mass specfile update now? I think asking > > individual maintainers to fix their packages isn't worth their > > time. > > -1 > > I like the Jason attitude much more. It gives time to discuss it. To find > false positives. It gives maintainers more > time to fix it their own way. > This is in contrast with Igor G. commits, which comes unannounced. In a > way which - personally - cause me to do more > work compared to when I do it myself. > I have went and send PR[0] which would print all packages which should be excluded from any automation. Anyone who feels that packagers are "their" are welcomed to send a patch for this utility. [0] https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities/pull-request/4 > > Miroslav > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NQY6UH3PVKYTVCATNM6JCC33BS4PSIBP/ > -- -Igor Gnatenko ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OU773O3PYB2EYPINNAYZOB7TMX24L4JQ/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
Dne 4.7.2018 v 12:18 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > What about just doing a mass specfile update now? I think asking > individual maintainers to fix their packages isn't worth their > time. -1 I like the Jason attitude much more. It gives time to discuss it. To find false positives. It gives maintainers more time to fix it their own way. This is in contrast with Igor G. commits, which comes unannounced. In a way which - personally - cause me to do more work compared to when I do it myself. Miroslav ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NQY6UH3PVKYTVCATNM6JCC33BS4PSIBP/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On 07/10/2018 08:53 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 10.7.2018 17:45, Till Maas wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36:08AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> >>> I haven't written any scripts which modify specfiles, only scripts which >>> find issues. And in any case: >>> >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_package_changes#Automated_cleanup >>> >>> Besides... this is git. And rawhide. If I broke something seriously >>> then I or any maintainer or any provenpackager can revert the commit. >>> >>> Really, if we just waited until every spec maintainer had a chance to >>> ack every script that's used to modify packages, there would be no point >>> in ever trying to do automated cleanup. Sorry, but my work with Fedora >>> will be aimed towards progress, not sitting around not changing anything >>> for fear of potentially breaking something. >>> >>> The removals of %defattr that I did a few hours ago were done by hand, >>> not scripted. I don't doubt that there's a reasonable chance that I >>> could have screwed up one or two out of nearly 2700 packages. That's >>> life. >> >> thank you Jason for doing this. IMHO we need to embrace this approach. >> As you write, it is the path for progress and I hope we have more of >> these automatic cleanups to reduce the need for manual interventions as >> much as possible. > > I second that. We need to remove old cruft from packaging and Jason is > doing a great job. Yep. Completely agree. This is saving everyone take and energy. Where we can safely identify and change something over the collection that needs changed, we should do so. Thanks tibbs. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EBLARFJHTQDOL7SPD274DALPM5EWE24T/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
In case it wasn't obvious from all of the commit messages, I did go ahead and remove many needless %defattr directives from a large number of packages a few hours ago. I used the output of the find-needless-defattr script from https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities as a guide for which packages needed modifications, but I made the changes by sed'ing out only specific %defattr directives (not all defattr statements) appearing as the _first_ line of a %files section (including the %files sections for subpackages). This probably does not capture all needless uses of %defattr but it certainly gets the vast majority of them. I verified that the %defaddr directives removed were equivalent to the default, individually verified the diffs to ensure that I did not delete lines I did not intend to delete, and then committed and pushed the changes. I did not update Release: or add to %changelog as these changes do not result in any changes to the build products. Expect more automated cleanup like this in the future. Next up is the few remaining packages which still use BuildRoot:. Later I will go back and audit by hand the remaining uses of %defattr in the distribution. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DHGU7NFGM5AJOFDQ7BMP3SLF67JZUYBR/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On 10.7.2018 17:45, Till Maas wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36:08AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: I haven't written any scripts which modify specfiles, only scripts which find issues. And in any case: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_package_changes#Automated_cleanup Besides... this is git. And rawhide. If I broke something seriously then I or any maintainer or any provenpackager can revert the commit. Really, if we just waited until every spec maintainer had a chance to ack every script that's used to modify packages, there would be no point in ever trying to do automated cleanup. Sorry, but my work with Fedora will be aimed towards progress, not sitting around not changing anything for fear of potentially breaking something. The removals of %defattr that I did a few hours ago were done by hand, not scripted. I don't doubt that there's a reasonable chance that I could have screwed up one or two out of nearly 2700 packages. That's life. thank you Jason for doing this. IMHO we need to embrace this approach. As you write, it is the path for progress and I hope we have more of these automatic cleanups to reduce the need for manual interventions as much as possible. I second that. We need to remove old cruft from packaging and Jason is doing a great job. -- 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6ZYQY63LEQAZGQJ2OMOP2JDPYD2ND6VA/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
Hi, On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36:08AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I haven't written any scripts which modify specfiles, only scripts which > find issues. And in any case: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_package_changes#Automated_cleanup > > Besides... this is git. And rawhide. If I broke something seriously > then I or any maintainer or any provenpackager can revert the commit. > > Really, if we just waited until every spec maintainer had a chance to > ack every script that's used to modify packages, there would be no point > in ever trying to do automated cleanup. Sorry, but my work with Fedora > will be aimed towards progress, not sitting around not changing anything > for fear of potentially breaking something. > > The removals of %defattr that I did a few hours ago were done by hand, > not scripted. I don't doubt that there's a reasonable chance that I > could have screwed up one or two out of nearly 2700 packages. That's > life. thank you Jason for doing this. IMHO we need to embrace this approach. As you write, it is the path for progress and I hope we have more of these automatic cleanups to reduce the need for manual interventions as much as possible. Kind regards Till ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/E6LI3KR274QO243SSCOL3WNXGWR3NIJY/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
> "NK" == Nico Kadel-Garcia writes: NK> Would you please post, or post a link to, your updated filter NK> script? It remains at https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities : https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities/blob/master/f/find-needless-defattr I currently have no unpushed commits to that repository. NK> I'd be especially curious if it inserts a record of the NK> work in the %changelog stanza. Well, the script just detects issues, it doesn't change the specfiles. NK> As good as you may be at writing such tools, I'd be a bit wary of "I NK> have this script that's touching hundreds or thousands of spec NK> files, and which I've updated again, and no one has seen the final NK> form, but you can verify my work by checking the thousands of NK> modified RPM's I've built". It seems somewhat risky. I haven't written any scripts which modify specfiles, only scripts which find issues. And in any case: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_package_changes#Automated_cleanup Besides... this is git. And rawhide. If I broke something seriously then I or any maintainer or any provenpackager can revert the commit. Really, if we just waited until every spec maintainer had a chance to ack every script that's used to modify packages, there would be no point in ever trying to do automated cleanup. Sorry, but my work with Fedora will be aimed towards progress, not sitting around not changing anything for fear of potentially breaking something. The removals of %defattr that I did a few hours ago were done by hand, not scripted. I don't doubt that there's a reasonable chance that I could have screwed up one or two out of nearly 2700 packages. That's life. Oh, and I did not modify the package %changelog sections, or change Release:. That would be pointless; the change is of course tracked in git, but as it makes no difference at all to the generated package, there is no point in it receiving a changelog entry. If you really want to add one, be my guest. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2JECYN5WU7VQTAGHXFYGDWK5D7MZGLP3/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes: > > KF> I agree. If this could be done before mass rebuild we can catch any > KF> issues/typos/mistakes in this with the mass rebuild. > > I've been away from computers for a bit, but I could certainly do this > without too much effort. I just know that some people are somewhat... > prickly about "their" packages and wanted to give some room for > discussion. But I will just go ahead and fix at least a big batch of > these previous to the rebuild. If someone really, really doesn't like > it then I guess they can revert, but I do intend to keep running this > and the rest of the reports I've been running recently. > > Also, the reason gdb didn't show up is because it uses yet another form > of the line which I didn't account for: %defattr(-,root,root). The fact > that there are so many forms and most couldn't tell you which arguments > are which (and yet copy it into their specfiles because some other > specfile has it) is more than sufficient reason for removing it. > > Anyway, modifying the check for that additional defattr mode adds 306 > packages (not including gdb because it was fixed). That list (in the > usual format) is below. > > Finally, the checks I'm doing aren't intended to be comprehensive. It > only looks for one specific case. After this is done I may work on > auditing all of the remaining uses of defattr. Would you please post, or post a link to, your updated filter script? I'd be especially curious if it inserts a record of the work in the %changelog stanza. As good as you may be at writing such tools, I'd be a bit wary of "I have this script that's touching hundreds or thousands of spec files, and which I've updated again, and no one has seen the final form, but you can verify my work by checking the thousands of modified RPM's I've built". It seems somewhat risky. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VBHRCULXLQ2JEURRAODATRZGRP264O2U/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes: KF> I agree. If this could be done before mass rebuild we can catch any KF> issues/typos/mistakes in this with the mass rebuild. I've been away from computers for a bit, but I could certainly do this without too much effort. I just know that some people are somewhat... prickly about "their" packages and wanted to give some room for discussion. But I will just go ahead and fix at least a big batch of these previous to the rebuild. If someone really, really doesn't like it then I guess they can revert, but I do intend to keep running this and the rest of the reports I've been running recently. Also, the reason gdb didn't show up is because it uses yet another form of the line which I didn't account for: %defattr(-,root,root). The fact that there are so many forms and most couldn't tell you which arguments are which (and yet copy it into their specfiles because some other specfile has it) is more than sufficient reason for removing it. Anyway, modifying the check for that additional defattr mode adds 306 packages (not including gdb because it was fixed). That list (in the usual format) is below. Finally, the checks I'm doing aren't intended to be comprehensive. It only looks for one specific case. After this is done I may work on auditing all of the remaining uses of defattr. - J< Maintainers by package: ElectricFencepmachata GREYCstoration tnorth MAKEDEV airlied clumens OpenLP trb143 PySolFC orphan PySolFC-cardsets orphan PySolFC-musicorphan QtDMMzap SDL_ttf jwrdegoede limb moezroy sdz Xaw3djwrdegoede orion abootoliver acpidjskarvad olysonek aiccupavlix antiword adrian apg kevin limb smooge apmuddwmw2 armacycles-adlimb aspell-ardanken aspell-enjchaloup nforro aspell-gljchaloup nforro aspell-hedanken autokey raghusiddarth autossh abo fale berusky-data stransky bidivdanken bisonpfrankli bluecurve-kde-theme kkofler rdieter rstrode than bluez-hcidumpdwmw2 bogl vcrhonek bsd-gamesjcapik jmakey sergiomb bsdiff jnovy salimma chkconfigjsynacek lnykryn msekleta clamsmtp gnat common-lisp-controller green compat-flex pmachata compat-gcc-296 jakub compat-gcc-32jakub compat-gcc-34jakub compat-libgfortran-41 aoliva jakub crackc4chris cracklib nalin tmraz cronolog ktdreyer crypto-utils emaldonado jorton cuetools stingray cups-pdf robmv cyrus-sasl jjelen plautrba daa2iso spot davixadev andreamanzi gbitzes dbh fabiand limb dcmtkignatenkobrain mrceresa diffutilstwaugh digitemp robert dpm-dsi andreamanzi ellert okeeble rocha simonm dpm-xrootd andreamanzi ellert okeeble rocha dump jridky vdolezal dwz jakub dynafed andreamanzi okeeble e2fsprogsjosef kasal kzak lczerner oliver sandeen edg-mkgridmapandreamanzi gbitzes elfutils aoliva fche jakub jankratochvil mjw pmachata roland enchant uwog epic vcrhonek espeak-ngolysonek exim-doc dwmw2 tremble expendable twaugh fedora-icon-themerstrode fedora-screensaver-theme rstrode fedorainfinity-screensaver-theme rstrode festival alexl bruno caillon caolanm hadess johnp mbarnes rhughes rstrode ssp timn fetchlog pwouters firebird cicku makowski fitykalexpl wojdyr flamerobin makowski flex kasal pfrankli submachine fpm2 aarem als freeradius nkondras ftplib spot fwsnort gomix gconf-editor alexl caillon caolanm cosimoc johnp mbarnes rhughes rstrode ssp gfal2-python aalvarez adev andreamanzi gfal2-util adev andreamanzi gbitzes gfalFS adev andreamanzi gbitzes gitweb-caching warthog9 gkrellm-top robert glibc64 codonell jakub glue-validator lfield stevetraylen gmic berrange cheese gnome-screensaver-frogs spot gnome-vfs2-monikers alexl caillon caolanm johnp limb mbarnes rhughes rstrode ssp gnucash notting gnucash-docs notting gnuchess limb gnupgbcl rdieter tmraz gob2 jkaluza gridftp-ifce adev gstreamer-plugins-good alexl caillon caolanm company johnp mbarnes rhughes rstrode ssp wtaymans gtk-vnc berrange gtypist shishz gzip branto jamartis kdudka pstodulk hfsutils
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:35:39AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" as the initial line in a %files section even > > though this has not been needed for well over a decade now. This > > construct even appears in new specfiles, perhaps because it appears in > > so many existing packages. > Why is that a problem? The line will have no effect. So why can't we just > leave it there? The general argument for removing unnecessary esoterica from spec files is that it makes them easier to read for correctness and much easier for new people to get involved. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DEUYKVUWR7ZCZ6XXAZXZKJ4OU3JIGZXL/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Jonny Heggheim wrote: > Hi Nico. > > > On 07/04/2018 03:58 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> Yeah, but since it's many thousands of packages, I think maybe you >> didn't have to send the whole list? > I like that he sent the whole list, then I can search for my username > and check if I am on the list. I understand why it could be convenient to see. If I'm looking at my email on a phone, I don't personally care to have my data plan eaten by such messages. It's a text based email list, we don't post binaries here for just the reason of bandwidth.I suggest that a link to the text list would have been more effective. >> It's been useful for legibility, even it's no longer recommended. Is >> it really hurting anyone at this point? And is it worth the thousands >> of .spec file changes to aggressively clear? > I like to use other packages for inspiration on how things are solved, > so it would be helpful for me that packages are tend to follow good > practices. That is sound reasoning. Consistency of formatting has its point, just as consistent whitespace use its point, as well. Is it worth all the changes in all he spec files? >> Also, it's not trivia to tell people "oh, my script is pretty safe, >> but you should please check many thousands of packages for me!!!" How >> about, instead, posting the script so we can check the syntax first? > > There are no need for snide remarks, what about just asking for the script? It did come off as snide. In this case, I think it was a level of justified snide. It's a dangerous approach that I'd like to discourage. Post the code, especially since the original link to the code mentioned in the first message is likely to lose its provenance as the project goes on. Post the current, in-use version of the code. > Peace, Jonny Peace is good. I'd feel more peaceful if the final version of the code being used is posted or linked to, to help ensure its provenance for something touching so many files. Please? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JCYKOAAEWK5UN5GXAJFV6WWRLI5E326G/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > In a %files section of a specfile, the %defattr directive is used to set > the default file ownership and permissions. RPM has provided a sensible > default since version 4.4 (which predates FC6 and RHEL5), but very many > specfiles still include an initial %defattr line like > "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" as the initial line in a %files section even > though this has not been needed for well over a decade now. This > construct even appears in new specfiles, perhaps because it appears in > so many existing packages. Why is that a problem? The line will have no effect. So why can't we just leave it there? Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TXNWZABSUZ45HFK4VUMOZA4FPKMJW3DG/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On 07/04/2018 03:18 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:02:16PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> I ran the find-needless-defattr command from >> https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities to find specfiles which >> include a non-default-changing %defattr as the first line of a %files >> section. This found 2513 packages. Because this number is so large, I >> was not able to verify each result manually but I did check a random >> sample of 50 packages and found the results to be correct. > >> Since this >> change is so simple, I may begin doing automated cleanup once F29 >> branches but feel free to fix your packages at any time. Since I am >> running this against the nightly specfile tarball, a rebuild is not >> needed for the script to notice that a package has been fixed. > > What about just doing a mass specfile update now? I think asking > individual maintainers to fix their packages isn't worth their > time. It's a safe change, just announce it, and patch all 2513 > packages a week later, without building. Also, there's no reason imho > to delay this until after branching, now is very good time for this > kind of fix. I agree. If this could be done before mass rebuild we can catch any issues/typos/mistakes in this with the mass rebuild. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XD7PSMZSGOYSHNSHTRXEQQFFMCVUAROK/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On Wednesday, July 04 2018, Jonny Heggheim wrote: > On 07/04/2018 03:58 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> Yeah, but since it's many thousands of packages, I think maybe you >> didn't have to send the whole list? > I like that he sent the whole list, then I can search for my username > and check if I am on the list. FWIW, gdb should have been on the list but it isn't. I suggest you double-check your package even if you don't see your name on the list. Cheers, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/B6EYMEM2Z52MNRO6MWGVLLCPHG7VTP26/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:18:00 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> What about just doing a mass specfile update now? I think asking
>> individual maintainers to fix their packages isn't worth their
>> time. It's a safe change,
>
> Is it? I haven't found whether this change is compatible with CentOS-6 (and 7)
> which could break them if you just build the Fedora Rawhide .spec for them.
It is. Jason mentioned this in the initial message:
> RPM has provided a sensible default since version 4.4
> (which predates FC6 and RHEL5)
I regularly build git from rawhide, which has no %defattr,
for EL-{6,7} systems.
In case anyone might find that useful or wants to confirm
that the lack of %defattr causes no issues, the COPR's are:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/git-maint/git/
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tmz/git/
--
Todd
~~
Prejudice, n. A vagrant opinion without any visible means of support.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3AJR4PPZNZTN3GPOWK3G7K4NHGOBNOVA/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:18:00 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > What about just doing a mass specfile update now? I think asking > individual maintainers to fix their packages isn't worth their > time. It's a safe change, Is it? I haven't found whether this change is compatible with CentOS-6 (and 7) which could break them if you just build the Fedora Rawhide .spec for them. Jan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/N7CSJ5AEZT2Q4O3CJ4MD4NJBJN3OD3V3/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:02:16PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I ran the find-needless-defattr command from > https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities to find specfiles which > include a non-default-changing %defattr as the first line of a %files > section. This found 2513 packages. Because this number is so large, I > was not able to verify each result manually but I did check a random > sample of 50 packages and found the results to be correct. > Since this > change is so simple, I may begin doing automated cleanup once F29 > branches but feel free to fix your packages at any time. Since I am > running this against the nightly specfile tarball, a rebuild is not > needed for the script to notice that a package has been fixed. What about just doing a mass specfile update now? I think asking individual maintainers to fix their packages isn't worth their time. It's a safe change, just announce it, and patch all 2513 packages a week later, without building. Also, there's no reason imho to delay this until after branching, now is very good time for this kind of fix. Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DPMSPSUQSFIDY27WECRE2DXXMTQTPV7E/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
Hi Nico. On 07/04/2018 03:58 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > Yeah, but since it's many thousands of packages, I think maybe you > didn't have to send the whole list? I like that he sent the whole list, then I can search for my username and check if I am on the list. > It's been useful for legibility, even it's no longer recommended. Is > it really hurting anyone at this point? And is it worth the thousands > of .spec file changes to aggressively clear? I like to use other packages for inspiration on how things are solved, so it would be helpful for me that packages are tend to follow good practices. > Also, it's not trivia to tell people "oh, my script is pretty safe, > but you should please check many thousands of packages for me!!!" How > about, instead, posting the script so we can check the syntax first? There are no need for snide remarks, what about just asking for the script? Peace, Jonny signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WWLN5BOH6DGAZWEKP4WNFDLMKOSG7OS2/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: In a %files section of a specfile, the %defattr directive is used to set the default file ownership and permissions. RPM has provided a sensible default since version 4.4 (which predates FC6 and RHEL5), but very many specfiles still include an initial %defattr line like "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" as the initial line in a %files section even though this has not been needed for well over a decade now. This construct even appears in new specfiles, perhaps because it appears in so many existing packages. The packaging guidelines indicate that %defattr should not be used in this manner. (This is not a recent change.) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions Yeah, but since it's many thousands of packages, I think maybe you didn't have to send the whole list? It's been useful for legibility, even it's no longer recommended. Is it really hurting anyone at this point? And is it worth the thousands of .spec file changes to aggressively clear? Also, it's not trivia to tell people "oh, my script is pretty safe, but you should please check many thousands of packages for me!!!" How about, instead, posting the script so we can check the syntax first? His original message had a link to the repository with the script. Here is the script: https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities/blob/master/f/find-needless-defattr Scott ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FYMRJI4Q7WMPXY2XSW2X5T6XN4S2YZBY/
Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > In a %files section of a specfile, the %defattr directive is used to set > the default file ownership and permissions. RPM has provided a sensible > default since version 4.4 (which predates FC6 and RHEL5), but very many > specfiles still include an initial %defattr line like > "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" as the initial line in a %files section even > though this has not been needed for well over a decade now. This > construct even appears in new specfiles, perhaps because it appears in > so many existing packages. > > The packaging guidelines indicate that %defattr should not be used in > this manner. (This is not a recent change.) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions Yeah, but since it's many thousands of packages, I think maybe you didn't have to send the whole list? It's been useful for legibility, even it's no longer recommended. Is it really hurting anyone at this point? And is it worth the thousands of .spec file changes to aggressively clear? Also, it's not trivia to tell people "oh, my script is pretty safe, but you should please check many thousands of packages for me!!!" How about, instead, posting the script so we can check the syntax first? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HAX6INYYG5ROMZTJIIEG464HMW4R364M/
