Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

There was no response from any FPC member as far as I can tell, therefore I have opened FPC ticket with the same request: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1232 Vít Dne 02. 11. 22 v 9:14 Petr Pisar napsal(a): It used to be a good practice to announce changes in Packaging

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

Dne 03. 11. 22 v 11:53 Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): Ugh changes like that really need a bit more open discussion and they need to be announced here. I disagree. **Every** change should be announced here. I did enjoy them in past:

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 09:10 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Stephen Smoogen: > > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 12:24, Gary Buhrmaster > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 3:57 PM Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > > > there, I did it for free. Took one minute. > > > > Clearly it should be

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On 11/4/22 1:10 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > Another hard one is rust, which has hashed sonames like > /usr/lib64/libstd-09076360fd960627.so. The hash is only known after > building the package because that fixes the ephemeral ABI. Right... I could glob a little more specifically for the few

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

Stephen Smoogen wrote: > I came to the conclusion that even `%{bindir}/ansible*` would be against > this as you would still miss > a) if ansible-foobaz had been added to the package when it had not been > there before > b) if ansible-foobaz was in a different package and you have an >

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 03/11/2022 17:01, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: >> As I recall(*), there are spec files that just >> find the various installed files (categorized >> as needed), and then use the -f option >> on the %files section. > > IMO, such behavior should be strictly

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

* Stephen Smoogen: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 12:24, Gary Buhrmaster > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 3:57 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > there, I did it for free. Took one minute. > > Clearly it should be submitted as a PR to the kernel package. > > And another for the glibc package

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 12:24, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: ... > ssmoogen@ssmoogen-rh:~/GPG/rpm-specs$ egrep '^%{_mandir}/\*' *spec | wc -l > 417 I think that for `%{_mandir}` each subdir should be accounted separately: ``` for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7; do echo "%{_mandir}/man$i/* $(egrep

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 4:07 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > At the moment the biggest set of packages that need cleanup will be perl, > golang and then about a couple hundred library rpms. I would think that the man api definitions may be the most interesting for some libraries (many files,

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 12:24, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 3:57 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > there, I did it for free. Took one minute. > > Clearly it should be submitted as a PR to the kernel package. > > And another for the glibc package (that > one likely will take

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 17:07 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 03/11/2022 17:01, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > As I recall(*), there are spec files that just > > find the various installed files (categorized > > as needed), and then use the -f option > > on the %files section. > > IMO, such

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 04:01:58PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:12 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > Or they will just do what I used to do long ago and just do a temp spec > > file with some sort of `%files *` and then rpm -ql and then `rpm -ql | sed` > > and

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On 03/11/2022 17:01, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: As I recall(*), there are spec files that just find the various installed files (categorized as needed), and then use the -f option on the %files section. IMO, such behavior should be strictly prohibited. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 11:26, Maxwell G via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu Nov 3, 2022 at 06:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > When will this silliness ever stop? It just does not make sense to > > explicitly list every single file in the RPM. Wildcards are often

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 3:57 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > there, I did it for free. Took one minute. Clearly it should be submitted as a PR to the kernel package. And another for the glibc package (that one likely will take more than a minute). ___

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:12 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > Or they will just do what I used to do long ago and just do a temp spec file > with some sort of `%files *` and then rpm -ql and then `rpm -ql | sed` and > replace the data in the pushed spec with the list. Nothing is caught because >

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 15:31 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:10 PM Ian McInerney via devel > wrote: > > > But the packaging guidelines already mentioned not globbing the soname part > > of the files, so this change makes no difference to that use case. > > Extending

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 12:08 +, Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:02 PM Michael J Gruber > wrote: > > > While it is annoying to spell out each file it does catch package changes > > which might go unnoticed otherwise. In particular, we've had a few > > unannounced

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:10 PM Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > But the packaging guidelines already mentioned not globbing the soname part > of the files, so this change makes no difference to that use case. Extending > the no-globbing rule to other directories like datadir seems very

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu Nov 3, 2022 at 06:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > When will this silliness ever stop? It just does not make sense to > explicitly list every single file in the RPM. Wildcards are often the only > reasonable way. Nobody is saying that you have to list every single file in the

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 08:02, Michael J Gruber wrote: > While it is annoying to spell out each file it does catch package changes > which might go unnoticed otherwise. In particular, we've had a few > unannounced soname changes and such lately. [Disclaimer: I have not checked > whether the

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:02 PM Michael J Gruber wrote: > While it is annoying to spell out each file it does catch package changes > which might go unnoticed otherwise. In particular, we've had a few > unannounced soname changes and such lately. [Disclaimer: I have not checked > whether the

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

While it is annoying to spell out each file it does catch package changes which might go unnoticed otherwise. In particular, we've had a few unannounced soname changes and such lately. [Disclaimer: I have not checked whether the maintainer ignored the build failure for an explicit soname or got

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 05:04, Petr Pisar wrote: > It used to be a good practice to announce changes in Packaging Guidelines > here on this > list. The forkflow was that Fedora Packaging Committee accepted a change on > it's meeting and

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

Petr Pisar wrote: > However, this is not true anomore. E.g. In February a ban for wildcard > %files was augmented from dynamic libraries to all top-level files > : When will this silliness ever stop? It just does

Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

It used to be a good practice to announce changes in Packaging Guidelines here on this list. The forkflow was that Fedora Packaging Committee accepted a change on it's meeting and then announced it in their meeting notes posted here.