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/wi
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://pa
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
Th
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?
> "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 willin
> "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 the
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,
>
> 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 Pre
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 functi
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 d
> "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 unt
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 Summ
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/Packa
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:27:44 PM CEST Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >>
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III
> wrote:
>>
>> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
>>
>> -
>>
>> The Filesystem Layout section of the guidelines was simplified and
>> outdated information
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
>
> -
>
> The Filesystem Layout section of the guidelines was simplified and
> outdated information was removed.
>
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
>
> "RD" == Rex Dieter writes:
RD> Perhaps fpc folks missed my recent related post:
That change was actually made quite some time before I sent the
announcement. Sometimes I get behind.
- J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
...
> The use of rich (or Boolean) dependencies is now OK for F23+.
> *
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_dependencies
> * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/593
Perhaps fpc
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:15:31PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> The use of rich (or Boolean) dependencies is now OK for F23+.
> *
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_dependencies
> * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/593
Exciting. A little scary. :)
On 22 February 2016 at 17:38, Corey Sheldon wrote:
>
> Kevin, et al.
>
> I am willing to help with the re-write but admittedly some of it will
require a crash course for me.
>
>
> On 02/22/2016 11:31 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 +
> Mat Booth wrote:
>
> Wow, that "H
On 22 February 2016 at 16:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 +
> Mat Booth wrote:
>
> > Wow, that "HOWTO" is a really old page -- not changed since being
> > imported from the old moin moin wiki. My feeling is that page should
> > be deleted and the "How to create an RPM p
Kevin, et al.
I am willing to help with the re-write but admittedly some of it will
require a crash course for me.
On 02/22/2016 11:31 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 +
> Mat Booth wrote:
>
>> Wow, that "HOWTO" is a really old page -- not changed since being
>> imported
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 +
Mat Booth wrote:
> Wow, that "HOWTO" is a really old page -- not changed since being
> imported from the old moin moin wiki. My feeling is that page should
> be deleted and the "How to create an RPM package" page should be
> updated.
>
> Here is the official gu
On 22 February 2016 at 10:54, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > RWMJ> Is that new?
> >
> > Not really. The change relating to what's in the buildroot was made
> > about nine months ago: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497
>
> I created my first COPR over this weekend. I worked according to:
> https://f
> RWMJ> Is that new?
>
> Not really. The change relating to what's in the buildroot was made
> about nine months ago: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497
I created my first COPR over this weekend. I worked according to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
because that
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:29:16AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:07:29 +
> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> > Here's a video demonstrating this:
> >
> > http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/packaging-caching/
>
> I think this is fallout from some problems we had with a memcac
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:07:29 +
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> Here's a video demonstrating this:
>
> http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/packaging-caching/
I think this is fallout from some problems we had with a memcached
server yesterday. I've cleared out our varnish cache, so it should
hopefu
Here's a video demonstrating this:
http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/packaging-caching/
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows prog
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:29:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On 18-02-16 08:33, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
> >
> >-
> >
> >A section on the treatment of pregenerated code has been added to the
> >main guideline page
> "HdG" == Hans de Goede writes:
HdG> I was specifically interested in this one, but this seems to be
HdG> missing from the wiki page ?
That URL certainly works for me. Here's the text:
Use of pregenerated code
Often a package will contain code which was itself generated by other
code. Th
Hi Jason,
On 18-02-16 08:33, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
-
A section on the treatment of pregenerated code has been added to the
main guideline page.
*https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_pregenerated_code
> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes:
RWMJ> Is that new?
Not really. The change relating to what's in the buildroot was made
about nine months ago: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497
RWMJ> I'm fairly sure I've got a lot of packages that assume gcc is
RWMJ> there as part of the basic e
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:04 AM Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
> *https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_for_EPEL
> *https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging
> *https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/599
>
>
T
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 01:33:28AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> A new page for guidelines specific to C and C++ has been added.
>
> *https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B?rd=C_and_C++
> *https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/540
"If your application is a C or C++ app
> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes:
NG> In regards to boolean/rich dependencies, DNF should
NG> support them fine, because libsolv (the depsolver library)
NG> does.
This ban came a the direct request of one of the DNF project managers
during Flock. The final syntax hadn't even been chosen then. O
Hey Jason,
In regards to boolean/rich dependencies, DNF should support them fine,
because libsolv (the depsolver library) does. During the F23 development
cycle, libsolv's support for them was switched on, and as of F23 release,
they should work. As for the build system, Koji should be able to han
- Original Message -
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:03:00AM -0400, Robert Kuska wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Jason L Tibbitts III"
> > > To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:34:06 PM
> > > Subject: [Guidelines change] Chang
> "VS" == Ville Skyttä writes:
VS> I have a bug report about the macros. Where should I file it, FPC
VS> ticket or Bugzilla against the python* packages that ship the
VS> affected macro files?
Oops, I didn't see your mailing list post until well after I saw the
ticket.
Unfortunately this ki
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:03:00AM -0400, Robert Kuska wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Jason L Tibbitts III"
> > To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:34:06 PM
> > Subject: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines
> >
> > H
- Original Message -
> From: "Jason L Tibbitts III"
> To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:34:06 PM
> Subject: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines
>
> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
>
> -
>
> Th
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:11:26 +0300
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III
>> wrote:
>> > The big change is that the Python guidelines have been extensively
>> > reorganized and partially rewritten, and
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:11:26 +0300
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III
> wrote:
> > The big change is that the Python guidelines have been extensively
> > reorganized and partially rewritten, and new macros are available
> > which simplify packaging by remo
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> The big change is that the Python guidelines have been extensively
> reorganized and partially rewritten, and new macros are available which
> simplify packaging by removing some of the boilerplate which was
> previously required.
I h
On 10. 7. 2015 at 09:45:36, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 10:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 11:22 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > Is there any case to allow Supplements: in the Fedora Collection?
> > > It
> > > seems to me like this could be pr
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 10:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 11:22 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Is there any case to allow Supplements: in the Fedora Collection?
> > It
> > seems to me like this could be problematic. (e.g. I write a plugin
> > for
> > a popular engin
Jerry James wrote:
> First, what is a hint? Does that word refer collectively to all weak
> dependencies? The wiki page doesn't say, so I'm left to guess.
That seemed perfectly clear to me. Note how the word is introduced:
“They come in two strengths: "weak" and "hint" [...]”
The meaning of “we
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 21:42 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> If that is not what the word means, then a definition
> in the introduction would be very helpful, since there is no
> definition anywhere on that page.
A hint is a weak dependency that does not affect the default package
suggestion: Suggests
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies
>
> Awesome -- thanks, FPC! This is really exciting.
That is exciting! Thanks to everyone involved in this
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 11:22 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Is there any case to allow Supplements: in the Fedora Collection? It
> seems to me like this could be problematic. (e.g. I write a plugin
> for
> a popular engine and package it, then add Supplements: so that it
> gets
> pulled in by d
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 20:13 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. Note that
> there is also a set of Python guideline changes pending which I will
> send in a separate announcement.
>
> -
>
> Guidelines for making use of weak dependenci
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies
Awesome -- thanks, FPC! This is really exciting.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedora
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 08:36:38 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 10:11 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > The BuildRequires section of the guidelines has been revised; the
> > exceptions list is gone. The release engineering folks are free to
> > define the buildroot and rpm is free t
On 05/21/2015 10:11 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> The BuildRequires section of the guidelines has been revised; the
> exceptions list is gone. The release engineering folks are free to
> define the buildroot and rpm is free to change its dependency list.
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Pa
sgallagh wrote:
> [...] Yes, I thought my new phrasing was more clearly expressing
> the original intent of the statement as I understood it. [...] I
> think we should perhaps discuss this at the weekly FESCo meeting.
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1446
> This is what I get for trying
> Yes, that's the way I understand it too. The distinction between local
> and remote is that remote attacks are in general more likely and thus
> dangerous.
> This is a good assumption - I'm sure that on most installations of Fedora
> there's just one or a few trusted users, and they outnumber ins
Hello,
> > Nevertheless, you raise an interesting question in general. The way
> > I understand the motivation for the restriction is to avoid any
> > chance of attack or unexpected access over the network. [...]
>
> OK, so the question is - are we (still) trying to preclude -local-
> escalation
On Sun, 2015-05-24 at 14:46 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 07:24:07AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >
> > zbyszek wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > Clarification: this change did not touch this part of the policy:
> > > that
> > > definition got copied over fro
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 07:24:07AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> zbyszek wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Clarification: this change did not touch this part of the policy: that
> > definition got copied over from the guidelines [1]. [...]
>
> (The previous wording said a package that "...does not lis
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 07:24:07AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> OK, so the question is - are we (still) trying to preclude -local-
> escalation-of-privileges type problems? If not, then many more
> services can be enabled by default - as long as they bind only to
> unix-domain sockets and/or l
zbyszek wrote:
> [...]
> Clarification: this change did not touch this part of the policy: that
> definition got copied over from the guidelines [1]. [...]
(The previous wording said a package that "...does not listen on a
network socket..." can be enabled by default, which was a broader
restric
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26:48AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > I'd personally prefer to assume the best intentions of our packagers;
> > specifically I'd assume that if there's a question as to the safety of
> > starting something by default, either they'd bring it up voluntarily or
> > some
sgallagh wrote:
> [...]
> The definition of "public" was intentionally vague, but perhaps we
> could try to find a better way to say it. I was trying to treat it as
> "network interfaces that accept connections from arbitrary sources".
OK ...
> I'm not sure that there's a tremendously meaningfu
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 21:03 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Jason L Tibbitts III writes:
>
> > Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines:
> > [...]
> > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices
> > [...]
>
> In this context (1.1 "locally running services"), what
Jason L Tibbitts III writes:
> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines:
> [...]
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices
> [...]
In this context (1.1 "locally running services"), what is a "public
network socket"? Is the idea that localhost services are now
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:56:13 -0400
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said:
> > As part of the ongoing effort to update the guidelines for an
> > eventual change from python2 to python3 as the default python we're
> > promoting use of %{python2}, %{python2_sitelib}, and
Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said:
> As part of the ongoing effort to update the guidelines for an eventual
> change from python2 to python3 as the default python we're promoting use
> of %{python2}, %{python2_sitelib}, and %{python2_sitearch} instead of
> the unversioned %{python}, %{python
Am 10.03.2014 03:35, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>> in fact *nothing* at all should refer to /bin and /sbin after UsrMove
>> as the waeking of the package guidelines is a sign of missing courage
>> in the context of such invasive changes - well, looks like i need
>> to continue fix
Reindl Harald wrote:
> in fact *nothing* at all should refer to /bin and /sbin after UsrMove
> as the waeking of the package guidelines is a sign of missing courage
> in the context of such invasive changes - well, looks like i need
> to continue fix the still extsinting mess of that half-baken cha
Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Right. CLEARLY this would've been Just The Thing to do when /bin changed
> from a directory to a /usr/bin symlink. Right?
That UsrMove nonsense was just the wrong thing to do altogether, we are
still suffering the consequences of the mess, as evidenced by that other
guid
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> But this is where the answers start to have drawbacks. As just one
> example, renaming the directory will break other packages which installed
> files into that directory.
Oh, I was thinking of unowned files. If the files inside the directory are
owned by other packages,
Am 09.03.2014 20:05, schrieb Panu Matilainen:
> On 03/09/2014 04:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> Directory and file interaction is a hard problem. There's no right thing
>>> to do in this case. The many possible things we could do all have one
>>> drawback or another in
On 03/09/2014 04:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Directory and file interaction is a hard problem. There's no right thing
to do in this case. The many possible things we could do all have one
drawback or another in certain cases.
The right thing is clear: If all the files in
On Mar 9, 2014 7:49 AM, "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Directory and file interaction is a hard problem. There's no right thing
> > to do in this case. The many possible things we could do all have one
> > drawback or another in certain cases.
>
> The right thing is clear: I
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Directory and file interaction is a hard problem. There's no right thing
> to do in this case. The many possible things we could do all have one
> drawback or another in certain cases.
The right thing is clear: If all the files inside the directory are owned by
packages
On Mar 8, 2014 11:57 AM, "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>
> Tom Callaway wrote:
>
> > Changes to python-setuptools in F20 cause easy_install to install egg
> > files instead of egg directories by default. This sometimes causes
> > problems for rpms of multi-version python modules as the egg filenames
> > a
On Mar 8, 2014 11:57 AM, "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>
> Tom Callaway wrote:
> > The prohibition against packages installing files into /bin, /sbin,
> > /lib, and /lib4 has been removed and a section explaining how Fedora's
> > UsrMove? feature interacts with the rpm %files section has been added.
> >
On 03/08/2014 01:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Hmmm, I know I'm late to the discussion (and I hadn't thought of it when the
> discussion first came up) couldn't we use something like this
> (foo-dummymain.spec):
>
> Name: foo-dummymain
> ExclusiveArch: %{ix86}
> …
> # the actual noarch package buil
Tom Callaway wrote:
> The Naming Guidelines for python modules has been updated to remove the
> exception for packages which have a "py" prefix in the upstream name.
> This change comes at a time when python2 and python3 modules are
> commonly built from the same package and all python3 modules are
Hi, the GitHub rule is not working, if the name of the package isn't the
same as the name of the repository on GitHub.
%setup -qn %{name}-%{commit}
Should be
%setup -qn $PROJECT-%{commit}
Miro
Dne 9.1.2013 20:37, Tom Callaway napsal(a):
Some changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines have b
Dne 3.8.2012 21:37, Lennart Poettering napsal(a):
On Fri, 03.08.12 21:10, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote:
On 08/03/2012 08:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 03.08.12 14:44, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote:
On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Fri, 03.08.12 21:10, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote:
> On 08/03/2012 08:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >On Fri, 03.08.12 14:44, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote:
> >
> >>On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter
On 08/03/2012 08:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 03.08.12 14:44, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote:
On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering :
On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (t
On Fri, 03.08.12 12:17, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> In the interests of balance, there are costs to changing things:
>
> - Documentation becomes obsolete and has to be rewritten.
The old path would still be looked at. And "rewritten" is too strong a
word anyway...
All I sug
On Fri, 03.08.12 14:44, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) wrote:
> On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> >>2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering :
> >>>On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >>>
> A n
On 08/03/2012 02:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering :
On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines,
covering Packaging of Addition
In the interests of balance, there are costs to changing things:
- Documentation becomes obsolete and has to be rewritten.
- People have to be retrained.
- People have to relearn tasks that they know how to do now.
- Fedora becomes incompatible with other Linux and Unix (BSD etc) distros.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering :
>> On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
>>> A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines,
>>> covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros.
>>>
>>> https://fe
Hello All.
2012/8/3 Lennart Poettering :
> On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines,
>> covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros.
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_
On Wed, 01.08.12 15:28, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines,
> covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional_RPM_Macros
What's the rationale b
On 06/07/2012 03:59 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Qua, 2012-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd
BTW ,
we don't have an %{_initrddir} for systemd ?
There's %{_unitdir}
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admi
On Qua, 2012-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd
BTW ,
we don't have an %{_initrddir} for systemd ?
--
Sérgio M. B.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi,
On Qua, 2012-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>
> In Fedora, you can assume that the default shell (/bin/sh) is bash.
> Thus, all scriptlets can safely assume that if they are running in
> shell
> code, they are running within bash.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scrip
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:57:29PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>
> > Packages which have SysV initscripts that contain 'non-standard service
> > commands' (commands besides start, stop, reload, restart, or
> > try-restart) must convert those commands into s
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:57:29PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Packages which have SysV initscripts that contain 'non-standard service
> commands' (commands besides start, stop, reload, restart, or
> try-restart) must convert those commands into standalone helper scripts.
> Systemd does not suppo
On 02/07/2012 11:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 13:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Again, citing FHS:
>> "Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not
>
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 13:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Again, citing FHS:
>> "Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not
>>
On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 13:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda
> wrote:
>
>
> Again, citing FHS:
> "Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not
> modify or delete software installed by the loc
On 02/07/2012 12:56 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 02/07/2012 10:04 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
And more importantly:
"Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or
delete software installed by the local system administrator without
the assent of the l
On 7 February 2012 02:04, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>>
>> Yes, Ralf says how a sentence from FHS "is meant to be interpreted". I'm
>> giving you a clear statement, that distributions may install softwar
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:13:16AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> There are basically two main reasons: stacks contain platform specific files
> (so not good under share)
>
This means they could go under %{_libdir}/dsc/%{DSCNAME}
> and also, they should be separated from the core syst
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
