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 Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-24-2008, 03:13 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

>>>>> "VS" == Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> writes:

VS> -1 to any buildroot suggestion that doesn't propose implementing
VS> it internally in rpm aiming for eventual deprecation and
VS> elimination of the BuildRoot tag (and related "rm -rf"'s) in
VS> specfiles.

I have to agree. We've been through this once already (painfully, at
that) and I don't really see the point of doing it again unless we
make real progress in getting this buildroot nonsense out of the
specfiles and into rpm.

One issue with the security argument made in the proposal is that,
while a laudable goal, the actual exposure isn't due to the buildroot
specification in Fedora packages, since we could fix all of those and
there would still be exposure when someone rebuilds packages that
don't come from Fedora. The exposure is in the rpmbuild
infrastructure itself, and honestly I think that it would be more
productive if the security arguments were directed there.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-25-2008, 11:27 AM
"Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski"
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Wednesday, 19 March 2008 at 23:33, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> This goes out specifically to the Fedora Packaging Committee Members,
> but is certainly open for comments from all.
>
> We've got a lot of drafts that are queued up for next Tuesday's meeting,
> so it would be very helpful if you read them all well in advance:
>
> As always, this list is pulled from
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo (which embeds the
> table from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo ):
>
> ASCII Naming Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ASCIINaming
> Perl Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Perl

Both look fine.

> Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins

The build commands (java calls) look horribly complicated.
I'm quite convinced these should be made into rpm macros.

> OpenOffice.org extensions guidelines (Caolan McNamara) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OpenOffice.orgExtensions

Looks fine.

> Secure BuildRoot (Lubomir Kundrak) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SecureBuildRoot

As discussed in this thread, I think this should be embedded into
%install and %clean and the Buildroot: tag should just go away.

> Register VirtualProvides (Patrice Dumas) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesList

OK.

> SysV-style Initscript Guidelines (spot) :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript

Complicated, but I guess OK.

> I don't have the Java Guidelines draft on the list yet, but I hope that
> it will be ready by next Tuesday:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java

Not ready, I guess?

> Next Tuesday will undoubtedly be a longer meeting than normal, so please
> be prepared.

I can't promise anything, but I might be able to whip up some patches
for those macros I mentioned above in a few days.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-25-2008, 11:34 AM
"Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski"
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Sunday, 23 March 2008 at 21:01, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 06:22:47PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
[...]
> > tomcat5 package: it's configured to use port 8080 by default. I don't think
> > server(webcache) would describe it well at all. Also, changing servers to
>
> 8080 is used for too much stuff to be usefull in a Requires, in my
> opinion. Still should be server(webcache) is a server listening on
> localhost on this port wants to have this ability provided, in case it
> would have make sense.

Instead of "server listening on port foo", we should think of these
as "server which provides foo".

> > run in non-default ports is pretty common and kind of breaks the "contract"
> > of server(port_name), but perhaps that's just a documentation issue.
>
> Also the server may not be started.

Precisely.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-25-2008, 02:40 PM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

Hi All,

I've been reading most guidelines proposed for discussion today, and I
would like all the other FPC members todo the same, we have a lot of
guidelines to discuss tonight, if we all have already read them we can
hopefully get through them all quickly.


Regards,

Hans

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-25-2008, 02:41 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 01:34:59PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
> Instead of "server listening on port foo", we should think of these
> as "server which provides foo".

Indeed, but then this would be a completly different meaning. It is
actually what webserver is since it it used for an http server with cgi
handling.

--
Pat

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-25-2008, 02:58 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

This goes out specifically to the Fedora Packaging Committee Members,
but is certainly open for comments from all.

We've got a lot of drafts that are queued up for next Tuesday's meeting,
so it would be very helpful if you read them all well in advance:

As always, this list is pulled from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo (which embeds the
table from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo ):

ASCII Naming Guidelines (spot) :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ASCIINaming


Were you going to add something about working with other distros if
transliteration is not done upstream? (Jesse's post:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-March/msg00169.html
)


Perl Guidelines (spot) :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Perl

Looks sane


Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins


Do we want the Group tag information? I know we've decided group is
irrelevant in the main guidelines.


In the Jar Expansion (rare) item:
- I'd remove (rare) from the title.
- Should we remove the debug_package %{nil} workaround since there's
another workaround listed and we want debug packages?




OpenOffice.org extensions guidelines (Caolan McNamara) :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OpenOffice.orgExtensions


For item #3, does it matter which of the three directory names is used?
Should we pick one?


I'd split item #5 into two as the first sentence deals with package
naming and the second with directory locations.


#5b -- In the second part of 5, I'd list both the arch directory and
arch-independent directory and I'd list them with macros:
{_datadir}/package-name & %{_libdir}/package-name


#5b -- Should we have plugins install into subdirectories owned by
openoffice.org-core? ie: %{_libdir}openoffice.org and
%{_datadir}/openoffice.org. Note that %{_datadir}/openoffice.org
doesn't currently exist, so it's a new directory that
openoffice.org-core would need to provide.


Structure: I'd reorder the items so they match the order in which one
encounters them in the spec file:

5a 6 4 2 3 7 5b 3 1

Having short titles instead of just numbers might also be good.


Secure BuildRoot (Lubomir Kundrak) :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SecureBuildRoot


Panu, can buildroot go into rpmbuild?


Register VirtualProvides (Patrice Dumas) :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesList


I'd rather the page listed what should be added as the primary point of
reference. That will also justify its existence. For instance, if the
purpose is collaboration between packages, why list internal provides?


What makes the example of kuipc/cernlib(devel) internal? It is for one
package to require another so I don't understand the distinction.



SysV-style Initscript Guidelines (spot) :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript


rh_status in example superfluous?

lsb header-- how actually works would be better in a noteclass (but that
might not support formatting)


lsb header example first instead of summary?

Trim this from ScripletSnippets?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-1fc158879abd9cc7dd2ef2231983216928c7e35c



I don't have the Java Guidelines draft on the list yet, but I hope that
it will be ready by next Tuesday:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java


I still see open questions here.

-Toshio

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-25-2008, 03:02 PM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

Le Mar 25 mars 2008 13:27, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski a écrit :

>> Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) :
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins
>
> The build commands (java calls) look horribly complicated.
> I'm quite convinced these should be made into rpm macros.

Or better (IMHO) consolidated in a script package that Eclipse Plugins
BR.

RPM macros are hell to version and update, and I'm 150% sure the
Eclipse Plugin build process is going to change in the next version.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-25-2008, 04:08 PM
"Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski"
 
Default Drafts for next Tuesday

On Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 17:02, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Mar 25 mars 2008 13:27, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski a écrit :
>
> >> Eclipse Plugin Guidelines (spot) :
> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins
> >
> > The build commands (java calls) look horribly complicated.
> > I'm quite convinced these should be made into rpm macros.
>
> Or better (IMHO) consolidated in a script package that Eclipse Plugins
> BR.

Fine by me.

> RPM macros are hell to version and update, and I'm 150% sure the
> Eclipse Plugin build process is going to change in the next version.

Good reason not to put it in rpm-build then.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 PM.

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