Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 24.4.2018 15:32, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23.4.2018 21:37, Mátyás Selmeci wrote: On 04/23/2018 01:06 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: The Python guidelines now more clearly indicate that use of %{__python}, %{python_sitelib} and %{python_sitearch} is forbidden.   *

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 23.4.2018 21:37, Mátyás Selmeci wrote: On 04/23/2018 01:06 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: The Python guidelines now more clearly indicate that use of %{__python}, %{python_sitelib} and %{python_sitearch} is forbidden.   * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros   *

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 04/23/2018 01:06 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: The Python guidelines now more clearly indicate that use of %{__python}, %{python_sitelib} and %{python_sitearch} is forbidden. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/745

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 07/03/17 13:41 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "JW" == Jonathan Wakely writes: JW> The template at JW> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_templates_and_examples JW> still shows %install cleaning the buildroot as the first step, JW>

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> "JW" == Jonathan Wakely writes: JW> Sure. I was checking whether I should make the change myself, not JW> complaining it hadn't been done. You are of course welcome to change any page that isn't in one of the protected hierarchies (Packaging:, Legal:). We

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> "JW" == Jonathan Wakely writes: JW> The template at JW> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_templates_and_examples JW> still shows %install cleaning the buildroot as the first step, JW> should that be corrected? There are probably any

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Ter, 2017-03-07 at 14:29 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > The Tags and Sections section of the main guidelines was modified > > to > > use "SHOULD" and "MUST" language throughout, and to either > > discourage > > or prohibit the use of certain tags and sections. The section is > > short,

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> The Tags and Sections section of the main guidelines was modified to > use "SHOULD" and "MUST" language throughout, and to either discourage > or prohibit the use of certain tags and sections. The section is short, > so I've included it below. > > " > * The Copyright:, Packager:, Vendor: and

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Dne 3.3.2017 v 02:33 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): > Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. > > > > The guidelines on versioning packages were completely rewritten in order > to make them (hopefully) more comprehensible. This rewrite was not > intended to introduce

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > * Allowing "MMDD.commithash" (instead of requiring mention of > the SCM in use) in the "snapshot information" field. What's the point of allowing that format? 1. It destroys consistency (and the fact that the formats are now "suggested" rather than required

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> "TK" == Tomasz Kłoczko writes: TK> And now someone should add to git filtering off above, process all TK> spec files in git repos and commit necessary changes adding in TK> commit comment link to updated guidelines. Yes, I have some scripts brewing but I am not

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 17 February 2017 at 03:35, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > * The Copyright:, Packager:, Vendor: and PreReq: tags MUST NOT be used. > * The BuildRoot: tag and %clean section SHOULD NOT be used. > * The contents of the buildroot SHOULD NOT be removed in the first line > of

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Oops, one additional change was made which I left out of the previous announcement. A section was added to the Python guidelines describing the automatic generation of Provides: which was added in Fedora 25. Descriptions of three new macros were also added. *

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Oops, one additional change was made which I left out of the previous announcement. A section was added to the Python guidelines describing the automatic generation of Provides: which was added in Fedora 25. Descriptions of three new macros were also added. *

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:27:44 PM CEST Andrea Musuruane wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > > wrote: > >> > >> Here are the recent changes to the

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote: >> >> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. >> >> - >> >> The Filesystem Layout section of the guidelines

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. > > - > > The Filesystem Layout section of the guidelines was simplified and > outdated information was removed. > > *

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> "RD" == Rex Dieter writes: RD> Perhaps fpc folks missed my recent related post: That change was actually made quite some time before I sent the announcement. Sometimes I get behind. - J< -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. ... > The use of rich (or Boolean) dependencies is now OK for F23+. > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_dependencies > * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/593 Perhaps

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:15:31PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > The use of rich (or Boolean) dependencies is now OK for F23+. > * > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_dependencies > * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/593 Exciting. A little scary. :)

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 22 February 2016 at 17:38, Corey Sheldon wrote: > > Kevin, et al. > > I am willing to help with the re-write but admittedly some of it will require a crash course for me. > > > On 02/22/2016 11:31 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 + > Mat

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 22 February 2016 at 16:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 + > Mat Booth wrote: > > > Wow, that "HOWTO" is a really old page -- not changed since being > > imported from the old moin moin wiki. My feeling is that page should > >

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Kevin, et al. I am willing to help with the re-write but admittedly some of it will require a crash course for me. On 02/22/2016 11:31 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 + > Mat Booth wrote: > >> Wow, that "HOWTO" is a really old page -- not changed

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 + Mat Booth wrote: > Wow, that "HOWTO" is a really old page -- not changed since being > imported from the old moin moin wiki. My feeling is that page should > be deleted and the "How to create an RPM package" page should be > updated. > >

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 22 February 2016 at 10:54, Kamil Paral wrote: > > RWMJ> Is that new? > > > > Not really. The change relating to what's in the buildroot was made > > about nine months ago: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 > > I created my first COPR over this weekend. I worked

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> RWMJ> Is that new? > > Not really. The change relating to what's in the buildroot was made > about nine months ago: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 I created my first COPR over this weekend. I worked according to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package because

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:29:16AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:07:29 + > "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > > > Here's a video demonstrating this: > > > > http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/packaging-caching/ > > I think this is fallout from some problems

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:07:29 + "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > Here's a video demonstrating this: > > http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/packaging-caching/ I think this is fallout from some problems we had with a memcached server yesterday. I've cleared out our varnish cache,

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Here's a video demonstrating this: http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/packaging-caching/ Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:29:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On 18-02-16 08:33, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. > > > >- > > > >A section on the treatment of pregenerated code has been added to the > >main guideline

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> "HdG" == Hans de Goede writes: HdG> I was specifically interested in this one, but this seems to be HdG> missing from the wiki page ? That URL certainly works for me. Here's the text: Use of pregenerated code Often a package will contain code which was itself

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Hi Jason, On 18-02-16 08:33, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. - A section on the treatment of pregenerated code has been added to the main guideline page. *​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_pregenerated_code

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes: RWMJ> Is that new? Not really. The change relating to what's in the buildroot was made about nine months ago: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 RWMJ> I'm fairly sure I've got a lot of packages that assume gcc is RWMJ> there as

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:04 AM Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. > *​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_for_EPEL > *​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging >

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 01:33:28AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > A new page for guidelines specific to C and C++ has been added. > > *​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B?rd=C_and_C++ > *​https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/540 "If your application is a C or C++

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Hey Jason, In regards to boolean/rich dependencies, DNF should support them fine, because libsolv (the depsolver library) does. During the F23 development cycle, libsolv's support for them was switched on, and as of F23 release, they should work. As for the build system, Koji should be able to

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: NG> In regards to boolean/rich dependencies, DNF should NG> support them fine, because libsolv (the depsolver library) NG> does. This ban came a the direct request of one of the DNF project managers during Flock. The final syntax hadn't even

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

- Original Message - On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:03:00AM -0400, Robert Kuska wrote: - Original Message - From: Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:34:06 PM Subject: [Guidelines change]

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

VS == Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi writes: VS I have a bug report about the macros. Where should I file it, FPC VS ticket or Bugzilla against the python* packages that ship the VS affected macro files? Oops, I didn't see your mailing list post until well after I saw the ticket.

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:03:00AM -0400, Robert Kuska wrote: - Original Message - From: Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:34:06 PM Subject: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

- Original Message - From: Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:34:06 PM Subject: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. -

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote: The big change is that the Python guidelines have been extensively reorganized and partially rewritten, and new macros are available which simplify packaging by removing some of the boilerplate which was previously

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:11:26 +0300 Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote: The big change is that the Python guidelines have been extensively reorganized and partially rewritten, and new macros are available

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:11:26 +0300 Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote: The big change is that the Python guidelines have been extensively

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 21:42 -0600, Jerry James wrote: If that is not what the word means, then a definition in the introduction would be very helpful, since there is no definition anywhere on that page. A hint is a weak dependency that does not affect the default package suggestion: Suggests

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Jerry James wrote: First, what is a hint? Does that word refer collectively to all weak dependencies? The wiki page doesn't say, so I'm left to guess. That seemed perfectly clear to me. Note how the word is introduced: “They come in two strengths: weak and hint [...]” The meaning of “weak”

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 10:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 11:22 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Is there any case to allow Supplements: in the Fedora Collection? It seems to me like this could be problematic. (e.g. I write a plugin for a popular engine and

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 10. 7. 2015 at 09:45:36, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 10:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 11:22 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Is there any case to allow Supplements: in the Fedora Collection? It seems to me like this could be problematic.

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 20:13 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. Note that there is also a set of Python guideline changes pending which I will send in a separate announcement. - Guidelines for making use of weak dependencies

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 11:22 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Is there any case to allow Supplements: in the Fedora Collection? It seems to me like this could be problematic. (e.g. I write a plugin for a popular engine and package it, then add Supplements: so that it gets pulled in by

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies Awesome -- thanks, FPC! This is really exciting. That is exciting! Thanks to

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies Awesome -- thanks, FPC! This is really exciting. -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list

Re: Build-essential packages (was: Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines)

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 08:36:38 AM Florian Weimer wrote: On 05/21/2015 10:11 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: The BuildRequires section of the guidelines has been revised; the exceptions list is gone. The release engineering folks are free to define the buildroot and rpm is free to

Build-essential packages (was: Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines)

On 05/21/2015 10:11 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: The BuildRequires section of the guidelines has been revised; the exceptions list is gone. The release engineering folks are free to define the buildroot and rpm is free to change its dependency list. *

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Yes, that's the way I understand it too. The distinction between local and remote is that remote attacks are in general more likely and thus dangerous. This is a good assumption - I'm sure that on most installations of Fedora there's just one or a few trusted users, and they outnumber

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Hello, Nevertheless, you raise an interesting question in general. The way I understand the motivation for the restriction is to avoid any chance of attack or unexpected access over the network. [...] OK, so the question is - are we (still) trying to preclude -local-

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Sun, 2015-05-24 at 14:46 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 07:24:07AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: zbyszek wrote: [...] Clarification: this change did not touch this part of the policy: that definition got copied over from the guidelines

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

sgallagh wrote: [...] Yes, I thought my new phrasing was more clearly expressing the original intent of the statement as I understood it. [...] I think we should perhaps discuss this at the weekly FESCo meeting. https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1446 This is what I get for trying to

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 07:24:07AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: zbyszek wrote: [...] Clarification: this change did not touch this part of the policy: that definition got copied over from the guidelines [1]. [...] (The previous wording said a package that ...does not listen on a

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

zbyszek wrote: [...] Clarification: this change did not touch this part of the policy: that definition got copied over from the guidelines [1]. [...] (The previous wording said a package that ...does not listen on a network socket... can be enabled by default, which was a broader restriction

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 07:24:07AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: OK, so the question is - are we (still) trying to preclude -local- escalation-of-privileges type problems? If not, then many more services can be enabled by default - as long as they bind only to unix-domain sockets and/or

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26:48AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: I'd personally prefer to assume the best intentions of our packagers; specifically I'd assume that if there's a question as to the safety of starting something by default, either they'd bring it up voluntarily or someone

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

sgallagh wrote: [...] The definition of public was intentionally vague, but perhaps we could try to find a better way to say it. I was trying to treat it as network interfaces that accept connections from arbitrary sources. OK ... I'm not sure that there's a tremendously meaningful

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu writes: Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines: [...] * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices [...] In this context (1.1 locally running services), what is a public network socket? Is the idea that localhost

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 21:03 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu writes: Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines: [...] * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices [...] In this context (1.1 locally running services),

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:56:13 -0400 Bill Nottingham nott...@splat.cc wrote: Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said: As part of the ongoing effort to update the guidelines for an eventual change from python2 to python3 as the default python we're promoting use of %{python2},

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Am 10.03.2014 03:35, schrieb Kevin Kofler: Reindl Harald wrote: in fact *nothing* at all should refer to /bin and /sbin after UsrMove as the waeking of the package guidelines is a sign of missing courage in the context of such invasive changes - well, looks like i need to continue fix the

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said: As part of the ongoing effort to update the guidelines for an eventual change from python2 to python3 as the default python we're promoting use of %{python2}, %{python2_sitelib}, and %{python2_sitearch} instead of the unversioned %{python},

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Mar 9, 2014 7:49 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Directory and file interaction is a hard problem. There's no right thing to do in this case. The many possible things we could do all have one drawback or another in certain cases. The right thing

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 03/09/2014 04:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Directory and file interaction is a hard problem. There's no right thing to do in this case. The many possible things we could do all have one drawback or another in certain cases. The right thing is clear: If all the files

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Am 09.03.2014 20:05, schrieb Panu Matilainen: On 03/09/2014 04:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Directory and file interaction is a hard problem. There's no right thing to do in this case. The many possible things we could do all have one drawback or another in certain

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Toshio Kuratomi wrote: But this is where the answers start to have drawbacks. As just one example, renaming the directory will break other packages which installed files into that directory. Oh, I was thinking of unowned files. If the files inside the directory are owned by other packages,

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Panu Matilainen wrote: Right. CLEARLY this would've been Just The Thing to do when /bin changed from a directory to a /usr/bin symlink. Right? That UsrMove nonsense was just the wrong thing to do altogether, we are still suffering the consequences of the mess, as evidenced by that other

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Reindl Harald wrote: in fact *nothing* at all should refer to /bin and /sbin after UsrMove as the waeking of the package guidelines is a sign of missing courage in the context of such invasive changes - well, looks like i need to continue fix the still extsinting mess of that half-baken change

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 03/08/2014 01:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Hmmm, I know I'm late to the discussion (and I hadn't thought of it when the discussion first came up) couldn't we use something like this (foo-dummymain.spec): Name: foo-dummymain ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} … # the actual noarch package built as a

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Mar 8, 2014 11:57 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Tom Callaway wrote: Changes to python-setuptools in F20 cause easy_install to install egg files instead of egg directories by default. This sometimes causes problems for rpms of multi-version python modules as the egg

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Hi, the GitHub rule is not working, if the name of the package isn't the same as the name of the repository on GitHub. %setup -qn %{name}-%{commit} Should be %setup -qn $PROJECT-%{commit} Miro Dne 9.1.2013 20:37, Tom Callaway napsal(a): Some changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines have

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Dne 3.8.2012 21:37, Lennart Poettering napsal(a): On Fri, 03.08.12 21:10, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote: On 08/03/2012 08:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 03.08.12 14:44, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote: On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote: A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines, covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional_RPM_Macros What's the rationale

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Hello All. 2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de: On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote: A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines, covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros.

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de: On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote: A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines, covering Packaging of Additional

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

In the interests of balance, there are costs to changing things: - Documentation becomes obsolete and has to be rewritten. - People have to be retrained. - People have to relearn tasks that they know how to do now. - Fedora becomes incompatible with other Linux and Unix (BSD etc) distros.

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de: On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote: A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Fri, 03.08.12 14:44, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote: On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de: On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Fri, 03.08.12 12:17, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote: In the interests of balance, there are costs to changing things: - Documentation becomes obsolete and has to be rewritten. The old path would still be looked at. And rewritten is too strong a word anyway... All I

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 08/03/2012 08:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 03.08.12 14:44, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote: On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de:

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Fri, 03.08.12 21:10, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote: On 08/03/2012 08:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 03.08.12 14:44, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote: On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Hi, On Qua, 2012-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: In Fedora, you can assume that the default shell (/bin/sh) is bash. Thus, all scriptlets can safely assume that if they are running in shell code, they are running within bash.

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Qua, 2012-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd BTW , we don't have an %{_initrddir} for systemd ? -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:57:29PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: Packages which have SysV initscripts that contain 'non-standard service commands' (commands besides start, stop, reload, restart, or try-restart) must convert those commands into standalone helper scripts. Systemd does not support

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:57:29PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: Packages which have SysV initscripts that contain 'non-standard service commands' (commands besides start, stop, reload, restart, or try-restart) must convert those commands into

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 02/07/2012 11:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 13:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Again, citing FHS: Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Again, citing FHS: Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or delete software installed by the local system administrator without the assent of the local system administrator. How can this be

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

- Original Message - On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Again, citing FHS: Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or delete software installed by the local system administrator without the assent of the local

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: -- Distributions may install software in /opt What do you find vague about this sentence? Refer to what Ralf quoted and compare and contrast. Rahul -- devel mailing list

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

- Original Message - On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Distributions may install software in /opt What do you find vague about this sentence? Refer to what Ralf quoted and compare and contrast. Rahul Yes, Ralf says how a sentence

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 03:25 -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Distributions may install software in /opt What do you find vague about this sentence? Is it a Linux distribution (i.e Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian,...) or a software distribution (i.e a tarball release from upstream) ? -- Mathieu --

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Yes, Ralf says how a sentence from FHS is meant to be interpreted. I'm giving you a clear statement, that distributions may install software into /opt. Is the interpretation that Ralf is mentioning an official

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 02/07/2012 09:21 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com mailto:bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Again, citing FHS: Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or delete software installed by the local

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: And more importantly: Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or delete software installed by the local system administrator without the assent of the local system administrator. Supposing that we allow Fedora packages to ship files in /opt, how

  1   2   >