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 12-09-2010, 01:46 PM
Tom Callaway
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

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

---

A new page has been added which describes how to deal with bundled
libraries when you find them in your package:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries

---
Some clarification has been added to the sections dealing with bundled
libraries, specifically that:

In this RPM packaging context, the definition of the term 'library'
includes: compiled third party source code resulting in shared or static
linkable files, interpreted third party source code such as Python, PHP
and others. At this time JavaScript intended to be served to a web
browser is specifically exempted from this but this will likely change
in the future.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_librari es

Also, a note was added to make it clear that multiple licensing
scenarios may be a good indicator of a bundled library situation:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_S cenarios

---

A section has been added to the Packaging:Guidelines#Changelog entry
describing the acceptable methods of having multiple changelog entries
per release:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Multiple_Changelog_Entries_pe r_Release

---

A new example of a reason an exception for bundling libraries might be
granted has been added to the guidelines. If the library is being
bundled because it is a snapshot of a newer release of the library
needed for new features, you may have grounds for an exception. See the
complete policy for details on when an exception might be granted for
this reasoning.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Needing_unreleased_ features

---

Fedora has always implied that the update path from Fedora release to
Fedora release and from Fedora release to updates should be maintained
but there wasn't an explicit statement in the Guidelines. Well, there
is now.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning

---

The guidelines have been updated to indicate that %doc files must not
have executable permissions.

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

---

The section on Requiring Base Package was clarified, as the original
language involving -libs packages may have been confusing:

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

---

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

Many thanks to Steven Garcia, Nils Philippsen, FESCo 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:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure

Thanks,

~spot
_______________________________________________
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 12-09-2010, 05:43 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Thursday 09 December 2010, Tom Callaway wrote:

> The guidelines have been updated to indicate that %doc files must not
> have executable permissions.

Why? If they (example scripts etc) don't add any dependencies that aren't
already in the package's dependency chain, what is the problem solved by this
guideline, and how do you propose handling these files instead?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-10-2010, 04:20 AM
Ben Boeckel
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Thursday 09 December 2010, Tom Callaway wrote:
>
>> The guidelines have been updated to indicate that %doc files must not
>> have executable permissions.
>
> Why? If they (example scripts etc) don't add any dependencies that aren't
> already in the package's dependency chain, what is the problem solved by this
> guideline, and how do you propose handling these files instead?

I think these are those that are installed via the %doc line that is
usually used to include files like LICENSE and README. Files under
%{_docdir} should be allowed to be executable (example scripts using
some interface (uzbl does this)), but I would think these are usually
installed by the package itself or handled in the %install step with
manual install commands.

--Ben

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-10-2010, 04:52 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 12/09/2010 07:43 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Thursday 09 December 2010, Tom Callaway wrote:
>
>> The guidelines have been updated to indicate that %doc files must not
>> have executable permissions.
>
> Why?

The issue Spot tries to address with this change, is to prevent rpm's
dependency tracking from accidentally pulling-in deps, which aren't
actually used by the actual package, originating from %doc files.

As rpm's dep-tracking tracks "executables", his approach is to
indirectly achieve this by banning "executable %docs"[1].


> If they (example scripts etc) don't add any dependencies that aren't
> already in the package's dependency chain,
"If" is the keyword.

The problem with this is that there currently is no tool to make sure
they don't. Conversely, there repeatedly (and fairly frequently) have
been packages, rpm's dep-tracking pulls-in such additional deps.

> what is the problem solved by this
> guideline,
C.f. what I wrote in my last sentence.

Rpm's dep-tracking doesn't track deps for non-executable files.
=> No additional deps.

> and how do you propose handling these files instead?
My guess is, Spot's answer will be "chmod -x 'em".

Ralf

[1] I voted against this proposal during the FPC meeting, because I
consider this approach to be too radical and to be playing with
symptoms, without fixing the actual causes of the issues behind them.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-10-2010, 05:03 AM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Thursday 09 December 2010, Tom Callaway wrote:
>
>> The guidelines have been updated to indicate that %doc files must not
>> have executable permissions.
>
> Why? *If they (example scripts etc) don't add any dependencies that aren't
> already in the package's dependency chain, what is the problem solved by this
> guideline, and how do you propose handling these files instead?
>

Wouldn't it be better if this issue is solved on the rpmbuild side
instead of putting it as extra work on packagers?

rpmbuild can call either chmod -x on the %doc files at the end; or if
the problem is just the dependencies added by executable %doc files,
then rpmbuild can be taught to not scan the %doc files for generating
dependencies. If no, why not?

Orcan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-10-2010, 05:13 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 12/10/2010 07:03 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> On Thursday 09 December 2010, Tom Callaway wrote:
>>
>>> The guidelines have been updated to indicate that %doc files must not
>>> have executable permissions.
>>
>> Why? If they (example scripts etc) don't add any dependencies that aren't
>> already in the package's dependency chain, what is the problem solved by this
>> guideline, and how do you propose handling these files instead?
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be better if this issue is solved on the rpmbuild side
> instead of putting it as extra work on packagers?

IMO, yes.

> rpmbuild can call either chmod -x on the %doc files at the end; or if
> the problem is just the dependencies added by executable %doc files,
> then rpmbuild can be taught to not scan the %doc files for generating
> dependencies. If no, why not?

Agreed, something along these lines would be superior.

It also would help another issue: Packages would "automatically be
fixed" when they will be rebuilt.

Now, if Spot is consequent, he will have to enforce this guideline
explictly and manually [1]

Ralf

[1] According to a check, I performed last Monday, 272 packages
(src.rpms) in rawhide are affected.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-10-2010, 10:19 AM
Thomas Moschny
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

2010/12/10 Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora@gmail.com>:
> [...]
> the problem is just the dependencies added by executable %doc files,
> then rpmbuild can be taught to not scan the %doc files for generating
> dependencies.

That seems by far the cleanest solution to me. Especially
development-oriented packages often contain example directories;
removing x-bits there only puts extra-burden on someone trying to play
with the examples.

On a related note, rpmlint also warns (don't know if we have a
corresponding guideline) about empty files, even when in %doc, but in
some cases these might indeed be wanted.

Thomas

--
Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny@gmail.com>
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-10-2010, 10:40 AM
Mamoru Tasaka
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

Thomas Moschny wrote, at 12/10/2010 08:19 PM +9:00:
> That seems by far the cleanest solution to me. Especially
> development-oriented packages often contain example directories;
> removing x-bits there only puts extra-burden on someone trying to play
> with the examples.

Indeed some examples/ directory contains some executable scripts
which are useful to understand what the package can do.
I think "%doc files must not have executable permissions" must be
reverted.


> On a related note, rpmlint also warns (don't know if we have a
> corresponding guideline) about empty files, even when in %doc, but in
> some cases these might indeed be wanted.

Exactly. Removing empty files sometimes causes unexpected failures
so if there is some reason this rpmlint can simply be ignored.

> Thomas

Regards,
Mamoru

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-10-2010, 11:48 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 12/10/2010 12:19 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> 2010/12/10 Orcan Ogetbil<oget.fedora@gmail.com>:
>> [...]

> On a related note, rpmlint also warns
Warnings aren't errors ... in many cases, empty files are an indication
of something having gone wrong somewhere, a package doing something
improperly or a packager doing something improperly.

(don't know if we have a
> corresponding guideline) about empty files,
No, we don't have them.

> even when in %doc, but in
> some cases these might indeed be wanted.
I would not want to exclude this might be the case, but I am having
difficulties to imagine any.

Ralf

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-10-2010, 02:30 PM
Tom Callaway
 
Default Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On 12/10/2010 01:03 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> rpmbuild can call either chmod -x on the %doc files at the end; or if
> the problem is just the dependencies added by executable %doc files,
> then rpmbuild can be taught to not scan the %doc files for generating
> dependencies. If no, why not?

While I'm not at all opposed to having rpmbuild set chmod -x on
everything %doc before checking for dependencies, we decided quite a
while ago that FPC was in the business of working with the RPM we have,
rather than waiting for RPM to fix itself.

~tom

==
Fedora Project
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:32 AM.

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