subject:"\[Guidelines change\] Changes to the packaging guidelines"

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2019-01-17 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

We have begun to remove content from the wiki.  The old pages should all
now have links to the new docs site.  As we continue to work on the new
documents, the corresponding wiki pages will be emptied and left only
with the link to the new content.  This is currently most visible on the
main guidelines page.  The wiki history remains, of course, and all of
that history was also copied into the git repository which holds the
source of the current site.

As always, if you spot issues in the packaging guidelines, feel free to
file a ticket at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues.  You can
even send us a pull request.

-

The versioning guidelines have been modified to allow limited use of
RPM's tilde (~) notation when packaging upstream-tagged prereleases.

* https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/832
* 
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/c/5113d478f5885d2338dfbdceb043da634f732e51?branch=master

-


The python packaging guidelines have been updated to indicate the
changed default in Fedora 30 for %_python_bytecompile_extra (to 0). This
setting controls whether python files outside of the regular locations
for python modules are subject to automatic byte compilation.

* 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_Appendix/#manual-bytecompilation
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/830
* 
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/c/647454105e873c15ce0c5e10cfad37aae8a50225?branch=master
* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation_phase_2

-

Due to the recent accumulation of problems caused by unannounced SONAME
bumps in rawhide, a short "Listing shared library files" section was
added to the "Shared Libraries" chapter of the Packaging Guidelines: It
is now discouraged to use globs of the form libFOO.so.* (or similar) for
listing %files entries like libFOO.so.MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH in %{_libdir},
because it can conceal SONAME changes, and may contribute to accidental
bumps. If the use of any glob is helpful in reducing maintenance burden,
using something less general - like libFOO.so.MAJOR* - is encouraged
instead.

* 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/784
* 
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/c/2051d0c7dcd7f062e2c8571f19a8cf7eea8b0ce6?branch=master
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
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

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2019-01-17 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

We have begun to remove content from the wiki.  The old pages should all
now have links to the new docs site.  As we continue to work on the new
documents, the corresponding wiki pages will be emptied and left only
with the link to the new content.  This is currently most visible on the
main guidelines page.  The wiki history remains, of course, and all of
that history was also copied into the git repository which holds the
source of the current site.

As always, if you spot issues in the packaging guidelines, feel free to
file a ticket at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues.  You can
even send us a pull request.

-

The versioning guidelines have been modified to allow limited use of
RPM's tilde (~) notation when packaging upstream-tagged prereleases.

* https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/832
* 
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/c/5113d478f5885d2338dfbdceb043da634f732e51?branch=master

-


The python packaging guidelines have been updated to indicate the
changed default in Fedora 30 for %_python_bytecompile_extra (to 0). This
setting controls whether python files outside of the regular locations
for python modules are subject to automatic byte compilation.

* 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_Appendix/#manual-bytecompilation
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/830
* 
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/c/647454105e873c15ce0c5e10cfad37aae8a50225?branch=master
* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation_phase_2

-

Due to the recent accumulation of problems caused by unannounced SONAME
bumps in rawhide, a short "Listing shared library files" section was
added to the "Shared Libraries" chapter of the Packaging Guidelines: It
is now discouraged to use globs of the form libFOO.so.* (or similar) for
listing %files entries like libFOO.so.MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH in %{_libdir},
because it can conceal SONAME changes, and may contribute to accidental
bumps. If the use of any glob is helpful in reducing maintenance burden,
using something less general - like libFOO.so.MAJOR* - is encouraged
instead.

* 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/784
* 
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/c/2051d0c7dcd7f062e2c8571f19a8cf7eea8b0ce6?branch=master
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-09-17 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

The Python packaging guidelines have been updated to reflect the fact
that Python 2 is deprecated.  All relevant information for legacy Python
2 packaging has been moved to the appendix.  Together with this change,
the rule for naming the executables if both Python versions are shipped
has been changed: "The unversioned executable should be the python3
version, unless it would break users expectations, in that case it may
be the python2 version." Examples of that are provided in the appendix.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Appendix
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/793

-

The python guidelines were modified to indicate that packagers should
not simply glob all files and directories under the sitelib and sitearch
directories.  Other small changes were made to avoid conflicting with
this requirement.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Files_to_include
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782

-

A section covering the new automatic dependency generator was added to
the Python guidelines.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Automatically_generated_dependencies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/740

-

A new guidelines page was added, providing a place to discuss what is
and is not allowed in Fedora. A number of sections were moved there from
the main guidelines, and a new section was added indicating that only a
single kernel package is allowed in the distribution.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:What_Can_Be_Packaged
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/792

-

Small cleanups were made to the crypto policies guidelines to modernize
them a bit, and a new section was added requiring that newly added
crypto libraries must comply with existing crypto policies.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/785

-

The section on file and directory dependencies has been rewritten to be
clearer and to explicitly indicate which file dependencies are
permissible and which are not.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Dependencies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714

-
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
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

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-09-17 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

The Python packaging guidelines have been updated to reflect the fact
that Python 2 is deprecated.  All relevant information for legacy Python
2 packaging has been moved to the appendix.  Together with this change,
the rule for naming the executables if both Python versions are shipped
has been changed: "The unversioned executable should be the python3
version, unless it would break users expectations, in that case it may
be the python2 version." Examples of that are provided in the appendix.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Appendix
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/793

-

The python guidelines were modified to indicate that packagers should
not simply glob all files and directories under the sitelib and sitearch
directories.  Other small changes were made to avoid conflicting with
this requirement.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Files_to_include
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782

-

A section covering the new automatic dependency generator was added to
the Python guidelines.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Automatically_generated_dependencies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/740

-

A new guidelines page was added, providing a place to discuss what is
and is not allowed in Fedora. A number of sections were moved there from
the main guidelines, and a new section was added indicating that only a
single kernel package is allowed in the distribution.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:What_Can_Be_Packaged
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/792

-

Small cleanups were made to the crypto policies guidelines to modernize
them a bit, and a new section was added requiring that newly added
crypto libraries must comply with existing crypto policies.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/785

-

The section on file and directory dependencies has been rewritten to be
clearer and to explicitly indicate which file dependencies are
permissible and which are not.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Dependencies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714

-
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-07-24 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III


Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

The packaging guidelines for enabling services by default were
significantly revised to emphasize that services starting by default
should fail only in exceptional conditions, and to provide additional
guidance for services related to hardware enablement.
 
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/777

-

The Python guidelines were modified to mention the %pypi_source macro
(available in all Fedora and EPEL releases) which conveniently expands
to the proper source URL for the package at PyPi.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Source_Files_from_PyPI
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/759

-

The Python guidelines were modified to indicate that packages must not
own the top-level __pycache__ directory.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782

-

A small change was made to the Java packaging guidelines to specify a
dependency on javapackages-filesystem instead of javapackages-tools.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/781
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HP4LRC2RJNMOMXITZZYJ6FLF2RITY6H6/
___
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/HP4LRC2RJNMOMXITZZYJ6FLF2RITY6H6/

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-07-24 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III


Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

The packaging guidelines for enabling services by default were
significantly revised to emphasize that services starting by default
should fail only in exceptional conditions, and to provide additional
guidance for services related to hardware enablement.
 
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/777

-

The Python guidelines were modified to mention the %pypi_source macro
(available in all Fedora and EPEL releases) which conveniently expands
to the proper source URL for the package at PyPi.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Source_Files_from_PyPI
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/759

-

The Python guidelines were modified to indicate that packages must not
own the top-level __pycache__ directory.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782

-

A small change was made to the Java packaging guidelines to specify a
dependency on javapackages-filesystem instead of javapackages-tools.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/781
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HP4LRC2RJNMOMXITZZYJ6FLF2RITY6H6/

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-06-15 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

In Fedora 28 (and rawhide), the texinfo scriptlets (which call
install-info) are no longer necessary and should be removed or, for
cross-release specfiles, wrapped in conditionals. Note that there are
nearly 300 specs currently calling install-info in scriptlets; lists of
these packages will be posted separately to the devel list.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Texinfo
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/773

-

The section of the Python packaging appendix relating to manual byte
compilation has been amended with a new section applying to Fedora 29
and newer only. Because this is a rarely-trafficked section of the
guidelines and the change mandates modifications to a number of
packages, I will summarize here:

If your package installs files with names ending in ".py" outside of the
standard directories for python files (/usr/lib(64)?/python\d.\d) then
in rawhide you must disable automatic byte compilation of files outside
of these directories by adding "%global _python_bytecompile_extra 0" to
your spec and then, if necessary, manually byte-compile those files with
a specific python version using the %py_byte_compile macro.

There are 479 packages which will need attention to fix this before the
default value of %_python_bytecompile_extra becomes 0 (and potentially
breaks many of those packages) in a future release. Lists of these
packages will be posted separately on the devel list.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Appendix#Manual_byte_compilation
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/772

-

A new guideline page relating to package deprecation has been added, and both 
the main guidelines and review guidelines have been updated to reference it.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Deprecating_Packages
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Deprecating_Packages
* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Things_To_Check_On_Review
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/723
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4LOZKTTCTKJAT4D7FVSN7X3WVDSUVBG2/
___
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/4LOZKTTCTKJAT4D7FVSN7X3WVDSUVBG2/

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-05-25 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

Many changes have been made to the Ruby packaging guidelines to reflect
the current state of Ruby packaging.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/710

Note that the macros required for some of those guidelines might still
be making their way into the stable releases.

-

The Libraries and Applications section of the guidelines was modified to
favor independent packaging of applications and to discourage separate
graphical applications from having dependencies on each other.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Libraries_and_Applications
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/694

-

An exception allowing the use of a specific subdirectory in /etc/opt by
Chrome native messaging extensions was approved.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Limited_usage_of_.2Fopt.2C_.2Fetc.2Fopt.2C_and_.2Fvar.2Fopt
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/767
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DJUZVSBPI7G24IQYK2Q4WYON656ECFIG/
___
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/DJUZVSBPI7G24IQYK2Q4WYON656ECFIG/

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-05-25 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

Many changes have been made to the Ruby packaging guidelines to reflect
the current state of Ruby packaging.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/710

Note that the macros required for some of those guidelines might still
be making their way into the stable releases.

-

The Libraries and Applications section of the guidelines was modified to
favor independent packaging of applications and to discourage separate
graphical applications from having dependencies on each other.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Libraries_and_Applications
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/694

-

An exception allowing the use of a specific subdirectory in /etc/opt by
Chrome native messaging extensions was approved.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Limited_usage_of_.2Fopt.2C_.2Fetc.2Fopt.2C_and_.2Fvar.2Fopt
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/767
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DJUZVSBPI7G24IQYK2Q4WYON656ECFIG/

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok


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.

  * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
  * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/745



The EPEL guidelines for Python [1] still recommend these for EPEL6 
instead of %{python2_sitelib}, etc.  Is that still the case, or should 
those guidelines be updated?


AFAIK all of those macros are available in EPEL6. Will check and open an 
issue at http://pagure.io/packaging-committee/


Indeed. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/765

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok


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
  * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/745



The EPEL guidelines for Python [1] still recommend these for EPEL6 
instead of %{python2_sitelib}, etc.  Is that still the case, or should 
those guidelines be updated?


AFAIK all of those macros are available in EPEL6. Will check and open an 
issue at http://pagure.io/packaging-committee/



--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-04-23 Thread Mátyás Selmeci


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



The EPEL guidelines for Python [1] still recommend these for EPEL6 
instead of %{python2_sitelib}, etc.  Is that still the case, or should 
those guidelines be updated?


Thanks,
-Mat

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Python
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-04-23 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III


Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

A note was added to the Python guidelines indicating that the python2
stack may go away and that upstreams should be contacted about software
not yet ported to python3.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Python_Version_Support
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/753

-

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

-

Information about the automatic shebang line checking and modification
has been added to both the main guidelines and the Python guidelines.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shebang_lines
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Multiple_Python_Runtimes
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/738

-

The guidelines section relating to architecture support has been updated
to reflect the current state of koji's support of
ExclusiveArch:/ExcludeArch: in noarch packages.

 * 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_Unported_Dependencies
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/751

-

A guideline was added showing how to disable buildroot policy scripts
for your package, if necessary:

 * 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BRP_.28BuildRoot_Policy.29_Scripts
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/749

-

The Documentation section of the main guidelines was expanded to include
information about reducing build dependencies by building documentation
in a separate source package.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/715

-

The AppData guidelines were updated to mention the %_metainfodir macro,
which was added to cut down on the need for %if blocks in cross-distro
specfiles.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/752

Note that redhat-rpm-config/epel-rpm-macros packages supporting this are
in updates-testing, but buildroot overrides are active so you can use
the macro in Koji builds now.

-

The section on packaging additional RPM macros has been simplified 
significantly.

 * 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional_RPM_Macros
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/601

Note that the epel-rpm-macros package supporting this in EPEL7 is in
updates-testing, but a buildroot override is active so you can use the
macro in Koji builds now.
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-04-23 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III


Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

A note was added to the Python guidelines indicating that the python2
stack may go away and that upstreams should be contacted about software
not yet ported to python3.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Python_Version_Support
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/753

-

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

-

Information about the automatic shebang line checking and modification
has been added to both the main guidelines and the Python guidelines.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shebang_lines
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Multiple_Python_Runtimes
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/738

-

The guidelines section relating to architecture support has been updated
to reflect the current state of koji's support of
ExclusiveArch:/ExcludeArch: in noarch packages.

 * 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_Unported_Dependencies
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/751

-

A guideline was added showing how to disable buildroot policy scripts
for your package, if necessary:

 * 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BRP_.28BuildRoot_Policy.29_Scripts
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/749

-

The Documentation section of the main guidelines was expanded to include
information about reducing build dependencies by building documentation
in a separate source package.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/715

-

The AppData guidelines were updated to mention the %_metainfodir macro,
which was added to cut down on the need for %if blocks in cross-distro
specfiles.

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/752

Note that redhat-rpm-config/epel-rpm-macros packages supporting this are
in updates-testing, but buildroot overrides are active so you can use
the macro in Koji builds now.

-

The section on packaging additional RPM macros has been simplified 
significantly.

 * 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional_RPM_Macros
 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/601

Note that the epel-rpm-macros package supporting this in EPEL7 is in
updates-testing, but a buildroot override is active so you can use the
macro in Koji builds now.
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-02-14 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Just this one change, but it has implications for many packages.

The Scriptlet guidelines have received several changes regarding the
installation of shared libraries and ldconfig.  Use of the new macros
is detailed, and there is a new section on the scriptlets required when
linker configuration files are installed.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Shared_Libraries
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/654

Please note the following before attempting to use the new macros
outside of rawhide builds:

1) The updates for F27 (redhat-rpm-config-70.1.fc27) and F26
   (redhat-rpm-cponfig-64.1.fc26) which provide the new macros are
   currently on their way to stable and will hopefully be generally
   available in a day or so.

2) The epel-rpm-macros updates for EPEL7 and EPEL6, which provide the
   new macros for those EPEL releases, are in the testing repositories
   and need more karma before they can be pushed to stable:
   * https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-c5ae067f71
   * https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-580a31cb75
   
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-02-14 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Just this one change, but it has implications for many packages.

The Scriptlet guidelines have received several changes regarding the
installation of shared libraries and ldconfig.  Use of the new macros
is detailed, and there is a new section on the scriptlets required when
linker configuration files are installed.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Shared_Libraries
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/654

Please note the following before attempting to use the new macros
outside of rawhide builds:

1) The updates for F27 (redhat-rpm-config-70.1.fc27) and F26
   (redhat-rpm-cponfig-64.1.fc26) which provide the new macros are
   currently on their way to stable and will hopefully be generally
   available in a day or so.

2) The epel-rpm-macros updates for EPEL7 and EPEL6, which provide the
   new macros for those EPEL releases, are in the testing repositories
   and need more karma before they can be pushed to stable:
   * https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-c5ae067f71
   * https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-580a31cb75
   
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2018-01-30 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

We have more things coming in concert with various distro changes that
are happening, but I wanted to get these two out there now.

-

The icon cache scriptlets were removed from the scriptlet guidelines, as
no live Fedora release needs them.  They have been moved to the EPEL
packaging guidelines instead.
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/736

-

A section was added to the beginning of the guidelines, clarifying how
they apply to the various Fedora releases and to EPEL.
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Applicability
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/744
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-11-01 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

Following releng approval, the restrictions on the use of rich/Boolean
dependencies have been lifted.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_dependencies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/559

-

Packaging guidelines for Rust have been added.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Rust
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/705

-

A new section was added to the packaging guidelines regarding shebang
lines. It forbids the use of 'env' and codifies the longstanding rpmlint
rule that non-executable files should not have shebang lines.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shebang_lines
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/700

-

Appstream metadata guidelines were updated to reflect the new location
into which appdata files should be placed.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/704

-

The python guidelines were modified to forbid the use of /usr/bin/python
in shebang lines or as a dependency of a package.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Multiple_Python_Runtimes
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/698

-

The SourceURL guideliens were altered to Use a simplified form for
github URLs.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/697

-

The section on bundled libraries was expanded with more explicit
instructions on constructing the Provides: line which indicates the
bundling.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/696

-

The section on statically linking executables has been completely
revamped to remove the need for committee intervention and to make it
more obvious that there is no prohibition on statically linking to build
artifacts within a single package.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/692
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-06-07 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

-

The guidelines for enabling services by default modified to indicate
that FESCo approval is required for services which change the behavior
of other services.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices#Restrictions
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/683

-

A very minor tweak was made to the bootstrapping guidelines to invert
the sense of a test so that it matches expectations.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bootstrapping
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/684

-

The python guidelines were updated to mention that "python-" MUST NOT be
used in dependencies unless the proper "python2-" or "python3-" packages
do not exist.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Dependencies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/686

-

The naming guidelines have been altered to indicate that python2 binary
packages MUST be named starting with "python2-" and that python3 binary
package MUST be named starting with "python3-".  The section on the old
naming conventions for python packages has been removed as it has not
been acceptable for many releases now.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#Python_modules
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/685

-

The guidelines for package dependencies were cleaned up and modified to
indicate that all package dependencies MUST be satisfiable within the
official Fedora repositories.  A statement reiterating that fact was
added to the page on weak dependencies as well.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Package_Dependencies
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/688
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-03-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely


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> should that be corrected?

There are probably any number of pages which these days have become
outdated with regards to changes to the guidelines.  I try to fix them
when I can but I have finite time.


Sure. I was checking whether I should make the change myself, not
complaining it hadn't been done.


Also, in context, your link is already in the section saying it's from
the old document and is probably out of date, isn't it?  I guess I could


Good point. I jumped past that note (I think I got there from a
Google search for %clean or something like that) and didn't even
realise there is an "Old document below" section of the page.

I won't bother changing it as it's the out-of-date info anyway.

Thanks.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-03-08 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

> "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 certainly need more
people willing to fix up bad information on the wiki.

JW> I won't bother changing it as it's the out-of-date info anyway.

I did fix it up, but I'm sure there are more things in that document
which would need changing.  It would of course be better if I actually
had the time to finish working on that document, but of course everyone
is welcome to help.

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-03-07 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

> "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 number of pages which these days have become
outdated with regards to changes to the guidelines.  I try to fix them
when I can but I have finite time.

Also, in context, your link is already in the section saying it's from
the old document and is probably out of date, isn't it?  I guess I could
have just completely removed the old document once my rewrite had
progressed to the point it's at, but I elected not to do so.

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-03-07 Thread Sérgio Basto

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,
> > so I've included it below.
> > 
> > "
> > * 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 %install.
> > * The Summary: tag value SHOULD NOT end in a period.
> > * The Source: tags document where to find the upstream sources for
> > the
> >   package. In most cases this SHOULD be a complete URL to the
> > upstream
> >   tarball. For special cases, please see the SourceURL Guidelines.
> > * The Group: tag is unnecessary.
> > "
> > 
> > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sect
> > ions
> > * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/652
> 
> The template at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_p
> ackage#SPEC_templates_and_examples still shows %install cleaning the
> buildroot as the first step, should that be corrected?

IMHO No , also  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is in disuse 


-- 
Sérgio M. B.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-03-07 Thread Jonathan Wakely

> 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 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 %install.
> * The Summary: tag value SHOULD NOT end in a period.
> * The Source: tags document where to find the upstream sources for the
>   package. In most cases this SHOULD be a complete URL to the upstream
>   tarball. For special cases, please see the SourceURL Guidelines.
> * The Group: tag is unnecessary.
> "
> 
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
> * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/652

The template at 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_templates_and_examples
 still shows %install cleaning the buildroot as the first step, should that be 
corrected?

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-03-06 Thread Vít Ondruch



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 functional changes, but during the draft process
> the following small changes to the versioning scheme were approved by
> the committee and included in the rewrite:
>
> * Use of Version: 0 when upstream has not chosen a version.
>
> * Allowing "MMDD.commithash" (instead of requiring mention of
>   the SCM in use) in the "snapshot information" field.
>
> * Explicit mention of the case where upstream uses invalid characters.
>
> * More detailed explanation of dealing with "unsortable" elements,
>   instead of leaving many cases undefined.
>
> The examples were also split out of this page and placed in a new page
> which is outside of the protected Packaging hierarchy. The rewrite of
> this page is not yet complete at this time and I will be working on over
> the next several days, but assistance is most welcome.
>
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples
> * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/656
>

Wouldn't it be useful to mention "rpmdev-vercmp" somewhere?


Vít
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-03-03 Thread Kevin Kofler

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 do, too).
2. It omits information.
3. It can become really confusing if upstream switches to another revision
   control system with the same revision ID format (e.g., from one
   distributed SCM using hashes to another, e.g., git to hg or hg to git).

And also, why, if essentially the whole versioning guidelines were 
rewritten, was the opportunity not taken to also finally use the tilde in 
Version instead of the legacy Release hack?

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-03-03 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

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 functional changes, but during the draft process
the following small changes to the versioning scheme were approved by
the committee and included in the rewrite:

* Use of Version: 0 when upstream has not chosen a version.

* Allowing "MMDD.commithash" (instead of requiring mention of
  the SCM in use) in the "snapshot information" field.

* Explicit mention of the case where upstream uses invalid characters.

* More detailed explanation of dealing with "unsortable" elements,
  instead of leaving many cases undefined.

The examples were also split out of this page and placed in a new page
which is outside of the protected Packaging hierarchy. The rewrite of
this page is not yet complete at this time and I will be working on over
the next several days, but assistance is most welcome.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/656

-

The main guideline page has been updated to indicate that the Group: tag
should not be used.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/679

-

The section of the guidelines relating to spec files was
reorganized. Outdated information was removed and a new section was
added indicating the canonical status of the spec file in Fedora git
repository.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Files
* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Maintenance_and_Canonicity
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/613

-

A new section was added to the main guideline page with information on
the differences between libraries and how packages which fall into both
categories should be packaged.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Libraries_and_Applications
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/558

-

The main guidelines section on file dependencies was amended to include
information about directory dependencies, including a rule against
depending on a directory in order to bring in any files or package
functionality.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Dependencies
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/632

-

The Dependency Filtering guideline page was cleaned up a bit to remove
outdated information about Perl filtering.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/591

-

The example spec in the tmpfiles.d guidelines has been cleaned up.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/680
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/670
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-02-17 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

> "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 going to try and
do that until F27 branches.  I wasn't planning on trying to do anything
in a git hook, though; that kind of thing can cause problems because no
matter what you do, there's always an exception case that it breaks.

Tuning up rpmlint to complain properly is another thing to do.  I just
haven't managed to get very far in hacking tests into it yet.

Also, it's possible (or rather, I've proposed) that with EPEL5 going
away in six weeks that we will move from "Group: is unnecessary" to
"Group: SHOULD NOT be used".  That's being discussed in
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/679

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-02-17 Thread Tomasz Kłoczko

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 %install.
> * The Summary: tag value SHOULD NOT end in a period.
> * The Source: tags document where to find the upstream sources for the
>   package. In most cases this SHOULD be a complete URL to the upstream
>   tarball. For special cases, please see the SourceURL Guidelines.
> * The Group: tag is unnecessary.
>

And now someone should add to git filtering off above, process all spec
files in git repos and commit necessary changes adding in commit comment
link to updated guidelines.
Without this even in a year still will be in many spec files not compliant
with those rules.

Tomasz
-- 
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH *
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-02-17 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

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.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Automatic_Provides_with_a_standardized_name
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/635 
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-02-17 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.

The systemd section of the scriptlet guidelines was updated to indicate
situations where the %systemd_ordering macro may be used instead of
%systemd_requires.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Systemd
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/644

The guidelines for replacing existing packages have been updated with
mention of the "fedora-obsolete-packages" package:

*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
* https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fedora-obsolete-packages/overview/
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/645

The guidelines for systemd scriptlets were updated with mention of the
macros to be used for systemd user units.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Systemd
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/647

The SourceURL guidelines were updated to reflect a simpler method for
downloading tagged releases from Github.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Tags
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/651

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 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 %install.
* The Summary: tag value SHOULD NOT end in a period.
* The Source: tags document where to find the upstream sources for the
package. In most cases this SHOULD be a complete URL to the upstream
tarball. For special cases, please see the SourceURL Guidelines.
* The Group: tag is unnecessary.
"

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/652

The File Permissions section was cleaned up somewhat, to use slightly
cleaner grammar, use "SHOULD" and "MUST" throughout and to remove
redundant information. In addition, the following sentence was added:

"The %defattr directive in the %files list SHOULD ONLY be used when
setting a non-default value, or to reset to the default value after
having set a non-default value."

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/652

The Python Egg guidelines were update to better match current Python
packaging and to mention the %py*_install_egg macros.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/663

The example spec in the Python guidelines was modified to correspond to
the usual, "python3 is default" case where versioned executables are not
installed.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/672

The guidelines for using Alternatives have been better indicate the
situations where alternatives are and are not appropriate.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/673

The guidelines for per-product configuration have been updated to allow
copying the config file instead of mandating symlinking and to specify
the location where the variant configurations should be stored.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Per-Product_Configuration
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/675
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

2017-02-17 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III

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.

* 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Automatic_Provides_with_a_standardized_name
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
* https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/635 
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org