FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-16-2012, 04:52 PM
Till Maas
 
Default 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 non-standard unit commands.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files

The guideline for SysV initscripts[0] also specifies the commands
force-reload, status and usage. Why are these dropped?

Also how should new helper scripts be named after the conversion? A best
practice naming schema would make it a lot easier for a user to find the
matching helper script for removed commands.

Regards
Till

[0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Required_Actions
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-16-2012, 06:20 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Till Maas (opensource@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 standalone helper scripts.
> > Systemd does not support non-standard unit commands.
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files
>
> The guideline for SysV initscripts[0] also specifies the commands
> force-reload, status and usage. Why are these dropped?

status is a standard command, although scripts that do non-obvious status things
would need to implement them in other ways. (See 'network status', as an
example.)

force-reload is a standard command.

usage is not a standard command... since systemd enforces a standard set of
verbs, it's sort of obsolete.

Bill

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:28 PM
Tom Callaway
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Here are the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:

---

A new section has been added to the SysV Initscripts section, discussing
the proper use of subsys locking. Even though Fedora packages should no
longer be using SysV Initscripts as a primary service mechanism, Red Hat
Enterprise Linux and EPEL do. Additionally,
Red Hat points partners to the Fedora Guidelines when they build for RHEL.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Careful_Handling_of_.2Fva r.2Flock.2Fsubsys.2F.3Cservice_name.3E_mechanism

---

The review guidelines now reflect the use of sha256sum (instead of
md5sum) to confirm upstream source integrity.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Things_To_Check_On_Revi ew

---

The PHP Packaging guidelines have been updated to include guidance about
when it is appropriate to have an explicit Requires on httpd & mod_php,
how to handle explicit Requires on PHP extensions, and how to handle a
Requires for a minimum PHP version.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Apache_requirement
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Extensions_Requires
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Requiring_a_Minimum_PHP_version

---

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_M acros

---

A new section on the Documentation= field in systemd unit files (F17+)
has been added.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Documentation_field

---

A short section on the Group tag in Fedora packages has been added.
All current versions of Fedora (and their respective RPM versions) treat
the Group tag as optional. Packages may include a Group: field for
compatibility with EPEL, but are not required to do so.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag

---

The RHEL conditionalization has been removed from the Python3 example
spec file, as it is no longer valid.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_spec_file

---

These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging
Committee (FPC).

Many thanks to Remi Collet, David Malcolm, Vit Ondruch, Lennart
Poettering, Michael Scherer, Dave Sullivan, and all of the members of
the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing these guidelines.

As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If
you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can
suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure

Thanks,

~tom
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-03-2012, 10:52 AM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcallawa@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_M acros

What's the rationale behind having these in /etc? This is hardly user
configuration, and only ever used if people build their own RPMs. We
really should try harder not to clutter /etc with stuff that is not
configuration.

Why not have this somewhere below /usr?

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-03-2012, 10:56 AM
Peter Lemenkov
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Hello All.

2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@0pointer.de>:
> On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcallawa@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_M acros
>
> What's the rationale behind having these in /etc? This is hardly user
> configuration, and only ever used if people build their own RPMs. We
> really should try harder not to clutter /etc with stuff that is not
> configuration.
>
> Why not have this somewhere below /usr?

Agree. We should install them into /usr/lib/rpm.
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Kay Sievers
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@0pointer.de>:
>> On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcallawa@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_M acros
>>
>> What's the rationale behind having these in /etc? This is hardly user
>> configuration, and only ever used if people build their own RPMs. We
>> really should try harder not to clutter /etc with stuff that is not
>> configuration.
>>
>> Why not have this somewhere below /usr?
>
> Agree. We should install them into /usr/lib/rpm.

Exactly. Static stuff installed by packages should not land in /etc.
It's a pain on updates when it's marked as config, and stuff goes
wrong all the time, because things in /etc invite everybody to edit
it, and boom. We really should try hard to leave /etc to the admin,
and not the OS vendor.

And just in case that this will come up: all the bad prior art in /etc
should not be a reason to continue that road, it's not the right way,
and we can do better, and need to do better.

Thanks,
Kay
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-03-2012, 11:17 AM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default 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.

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-03-2012, 11:44 AM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default 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 <lemenkov@gmail.com> wrote:

2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@0pointer.de>:

On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcallawa@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_M acros


What's the rationale behind having these in /etc? This is hardly user
configuration, and only ever used if people build their own RPMs. We
really should try harder not to clutter /etc with stuff that is not
configuration.

Why not have this somewhere below /usr?


Because rpm doesn't have a drop-in directory for macros anywhere in
/usr, nobody has asked for one before this, and while I agree on "/etc
admin purity" being a good thing generally, it has not been (and still
isn't) enough of a reason to make it worth the pain for me to personally
drive such a move.




Agree. We should install them into /usr/lib/rpm.


Exactly. Static stuff installed by packages should not land in /etc.
It's a pain on updates when it's marked as config, and stuff goes
wrong all the time, because things in /etc invite everybody to edit
it, and boom. We really should try hard to leave /etc to the admin,
and not the OS vendor.

And just in case that this will come up: all the bad prior art in /etc
should not be a reason to continue that road, it's not the right way,
and we can do better, and need to do better.


Well, adding support for something like /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/ would be
essentially a one-liner patch. Dealing with the consequences of moving
things there is a whole lot more work, annoyance and distro-version
incompatibilities however.


- Panu -

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-03-2012, 05:26 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Fri, 03.08.12 14:44, Panu Matilainen (pmatilai@laiskiainen.org) wrote:

> On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@0pointer.de>:
> >>>On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcallawa@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_M acros
> >>>
> >>>What's the rationale behind having these in /etc? This is hardly user
> >>>configuration, and only ever used if people build their own RPMs. We
> >>>really should try harder not to clutter /etc with stuff that is not
> >>>configuration.
> >>>
> >>>Why not have this somewhere below /usr?
>
> Because rpm doesn't have a drop-in directory for macros anywhere in
> /usr, nobody has asked for one before this, and while I agree on
> "/etc admin purity" being a good thing generally, it has not been
> (and still isn't) enough of a reason to make it worth the pain for
> me to personally drive such a move.

OpenSUSE has this in /usr/lib/rpm/macros instead. Makes a lot of sense
to copy that scheme from them and making the delta between the distros
here a bit smaller.

I mean, I think RPM should look in /etc and in /usr/lib. But the
Guidelines should recommend the latter and not the former.

> >>Agree. We should install them into /usr/lib/rpm.
> >
> >Exactly. Static stuff installed by packages should not land in /etc.
> >It's a pain on updates when it's marked as config, and stuff goes
> >wrong all the time, because things in /etc invite everybody to edit
> >it, and boom. We really should try hard to leave /etc to the admin,
> >and not the OS vendor.
> >
> >And just in case that this will come up: all the bad prior art in /etc
> >should not be a reason to continue that road, it's not the right way,
> >and we can do better, and need to do better.
>
> Well, adding support for something like /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/ would
> be essentially a one-liner patch. Dealing with the consequences of
> moving things there is a whole lot more work, annoyance and
> distro-version incompatibilities however.

Well, it would increase compatiblity as the other big RPM distro uses
/usr/lib/rpm/macros for this already.

And I am not proposing that we should really move all macros from one
dir to the other immeidately. Instead I just believe RPM should look in
both places and the guidelines should suggest /usr and deprecate /etc
for this. That should be easy to do, and the transition would be easy
and "soft".

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-03-2012, 05:28 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Fri, 03.08.12 12:17, Richard W.M. Jones (rjones@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 suggested is changing the guidelines, not that everything is
moved, right-away.

> - People have to be retrained.

Nah...

> - People have to relearn tasks that they know how to do now.

Nahh....

> - Fedora becomes incompatible with other Linux and Unix (BSD etc)
> distros.

Well, the big other Linux distro I know that uses RPM already uses
/usr/lib for this. And I have yet to see a BSD distro that is based on
RPM...

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org