From Fedora Project Wiki
Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2009-04-28
Present
- Denis Leroy (delero)
- Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
- Rex Dieter (rdieter)
- Tom Callaway (spot)
- Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
Regrets
- Dominik Mierzejewski (Rathann|work)
- Hans de Goede (hansg)
- Ralf Corsepius (racor)
- Xavier Lamien (SmootherFrOgZ)
Votes
There were no completed votes this week.
Other Discussions
The following additional items were discussed; see the logs for full details.
- GConf scriptlets:
- Compiler flags
IRC Logs
| * spot looks around for FPC folks | 12:01 | |
| spot | abadger1999, tibbs, rdieter, delero, SmootherFrOgZ: ping | 12:03 |
|---|---|---|
| tibbs | HHowdy. | 12:03 |
| abadger1999 | pong. I'm here. | 12:03 |
| * delero is here | 12:03 | |
| rdieter | yo | 12:03 |
| spot | i don't think racor is coming due to time conflicts, but he did send his votes for todays items via email | 12:05 |
| spot | we have quorum though, so lets go ahead and get started | 12:06 |
| spot | first item: GConf scriptlets: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf | 12:07 |
| abadger1999 | So spstarr wrote the first section of this by looking at what SuSE does. | 12:08 |
| abadger1999 | (just pinged him in #fedora-devel to see if he's available). | 12:08 |
| delero | do we know how significant the speedup is ? | 12:08 |
| tibbs | This is way complicated, though. I'd really want buyin from our Gnome maintainers. | 12:08 |
| abadger1999 | spstarr had generated some numbers but I don't recall what they were. It was significant. | 12:09 |
| tibbs | Actually it's kind of ludicrously complicated. | 12:09 |
| spot | tibbs: agreed. i'd want buyoff from them before we even consider adding a pile of painful macros | 12:09 |
| abadger1999 | I agree, so I wrote a much simplified alternative in the bottom section. | 12:09 |
| abadger1999 | mclasen liked my alternative. | 12:09 |
| abadger1999 | (I think that he liked anything that hid things behind macros) | 12:10 |
| rdieter | mclassen helped spstarr with a revision or 2 of what has been proposed. I assume he's for it | 12:10 |
| tibbs | Is mclasen the only person we want to see approval from? | 12:10 |
| abadger1999 | Dunno. He's the one from the desktop team that comments on FPC proposals the most. | 12:11 |
| rdieter | during/after meeting we (I) could drop a message to fedora-desktop list asking for further feedback | 12:12 |
| --> mclasen has joined this channel (n=mclasen@nat/redhat/x-f2ba5db99bc02eb5). | 12:12 | |
| abadger1999 | Since spstarr isn't here at the moment, can we defer this to the end and talk about it then? | 12:12 |
| spot | well, since mclasen is here, i'd like his thoughts on the draft | 12:12 |
| abadger1999 | Ah cool :-) | 12:12 |
| spot | I have a few points: I think simplifying the scriptlets is a good thing, but i don't want to use macros to obfuscate other things | 12:13 |
| spot | e.g. I do not like %{magic_requires_for_things}, i much prefer: Requires(pre): %{requires_for_scriptlets} | 12:14 |
| mclasen | I think opencoding these scriptlets in hundreds of spec files is error-prone and repetitive | 12:14 |
| mclasen | but I agree that the requires part is not necessary | 12:14 |
| spot | mclasen: how do you feel about the revised macro proposal at the bottom of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf | 12:15 |
| tibbs | I do wish we could keep these drafts a bit cleaner. I can't really understand from this draft what is being proposed by whom. | 12:16 |
| * abadger1999 be sure and login -- looks like the wiki's caching is interfering | 12:17 | |
| tibbs | The stuff after "Discussion" is a counterproposal, but it doesn't seem complete. | 12:17 |
| spot | yeah, it is a bit of a mess. | 12:17 |
| abadger1999 | yeah... so everything above Discussion is spstarr's work. Everything below Discussion is my work. | 12:17 |
| abadger1999 | I mainly focused on whether we could get some macros that were less complex. | 12:18 |
| spot | yeah, i think keeping the macros simple and to a minimum is key | 12:18 |
| tibbs | So the spec template is the same in either case? | 12:19 |
| abadger1999 | Before we write it up, it would need to have a ScriptletSnippets entry that explained it... the outline of that is in the comments of the rpm macro script. | 12:19 |
| tibbs | Well, no. | 12:19 |
| abadger1999 | That's changed too. | 12:19 |
| spot | no, the spec template would be different, look at the comments in the second scriptlet header | 12:19 |
| abadger1999 | if you read the comments of each rpm macro script you'll see. | 12:19 |
| abadger1999 | Another thing I didn't like about the SuSE method is that the macros are different in different cases. | 12:20 |
| abadger1999 | Sometimes you can use find_gconf_schemas as documented in the proposed update... but other times you need to use def_gconf_schemas and add_gconf_schemas instead. | 12:20 |
| spot | abadger1999: have you tested your macros? | 12:21 |
| abadger1999 | spot: Yes, and they don't quite work yet. | 12:21 |
| abadger1999 | rdieter: Have you messed with rpm macro files? | 12:21 |
| spot | okay, i'd like to do this then... | 12:21 |
| spot | can we table this until next meeting, so that A) the macros can be tested | 12:22 |
| rdieter | abadger1999: i've dabbled here and there. :) | 12:22 |
| spot | B) the draft can be cleaned up in a separate proposal | 12:22 |
| rdieter | abadger1999: mind sending me what you have? | 12:22 |
| tibbs | Can we agree that we'd like to see something simpler than the SuSE macros? | 12:22 |
| spot | yeah, i like the direction that abadger1999 is taking it much better than the SuSE style | 12:22 |
| abadger1999 | rdieter: Yep, I'll tar up a small spec and the macro file. | 12:23 |
| abadger1999 | spot: Cool. Sounds like a good plan. | 12:23 |
| spot | okay, lets move on to the next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Globus | 12:24 |
| delero | another heavyweight | 12:24 |
| rdieter | step 1: flog globus upstream for inducing such packaging pain (reminds me of sage) (I'm only slighly kidding) | 12:25 |
| delero | is the globus packaging going to be the work of a single packager ? | 12:25 |
| abadger1999 | So far it has been. | 12:26 |
| mattiasellert | I'm here by the way... | 12:26 |
| abadger1999 | These instructions seem to be comprehensive enough that someone else could work on it too, though. | 12:26 |
| tibbs | Ralf's opinion was that this doesn't need specialized guidelines. | 12:26 |
| abadger1999 | mattiasellert: Excellent. | 12:26 |
| spot | i'm not really sure why there is so much hopping around handling the LICENSE file as a %doc | 12:26 |
| rdieter | that's so Ralf | 12:26 |
| abadger1999 | mattiasellert is the author of the proposal. | 12:26 |
| tibbs | I don't necessarily agree but the comment does have merit. | 12:26 |
| rdieter | tibbs: nod, it's more a howto than anything else | 12:27 |
| delero | a lot of work went into this draft... | 12:27 |
| spot | the spec examples have a creation of the %docdir, then copying the license into %docdir, then multiple lines in %files to cover the docdir as a %dir and the license as a file | 12:27 |
| spot | when the same end result occurs for %doc LICENSE_FILE | 12:27 |
| mattiasellert | No that would delete the rest of the documentation. | 12:28 |
| spot | i don't think so... | 12:28 |
| spot | especially since in your spec example, you're making the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} directory just before you copy the license into it (and after running make install) | 12:29 |
| abadger1999 | Some packages have documentation and some do not. | 12:29 |
| mattiasellert | exactly | 12:30 |
| abadger1999 | and since it's a mkdir -p it won't fail if the dir already exists. | 12:30 |
| spot | even if they do, listing %doc LICENSE in %files should be additive rather than removing the directory to replace it with the license file | 12:30 |
| delero | right | 12:30 |
| spot | thats how it works for the other... umm... all Fedora packages. :) | 12:30 |
| * abadger1999 recalls a discussion of that in fedora-devel where %doc removed the stuff installed in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE-VERSION. | 12:30 | |
| mattiasellert | It does. | 12:31 |
| spot | okay, well, i won't harp on that point, but we should get that fixed. | 12:31 |
| abadger1999 | This isn't the one I recall but: http://markmail.org/message/ysg4gq3im57ufa5n | 12:31 |
| spot | i tend to disagree with ralf, we have always permitted good type specific packaging guidelines | 12:32 |
| spot | the only thing that i see missing is any discussion of formal namespacing | 12:33 |
| spot | e.g. globus-$foo | 12:33 |
| spot | mattiasellert: will all globus toolkit packages start with globus- ? or just the libraries? | 12:34 |
| tibbs | I agree; I don't see how this is measurably different from, say, Ruby Gems or Perl modules in deserving their own guidelines. | 12:34 |
| tibbs | The fact that things have to be so incredibly complicated only reinforces that. | 12:34 |
| spot | indeed. also, having guidelines with good spec templates helps reviewers | 12:35 |
| mattiasellert | The vast majority are called globus-, there are a few that have other namespaces, e.g. gaa- and gridshib-. Then there are a few oddballs. | 12:36 |
| tibbs | I really wish we could do without some of the terrible !?fedora and !?rhel conditionals. | 12:36 |
| spot | mattiasellert: okay, so it sounds like you don't need a global namespace like we do with perl or ruby, for example | 12:36 |
| tibbs | When you see things like %if %{?fedora}%{!?fedora:0} >= 3 you have to wonder. | 12:36 |
| spot | mattiasellert: any chance you can narrow those sorts of things to Fedora 6? | 12:37 |
| spot | 6+, rather | 12:37 |
| tibbs | Why not 9+? | 12:37 |
| spot | well, we've permitted things for two revs off the last active release for items like Provides | 12:38 |
| spot | which would be 7, rather than 9. | 12:38 |
| tibbs | But this is all going to be new packages. | 12:38 |
| spot | yeah, good point. | 12:38 |
| spot | removing that (the rhel stuff can stay for epel) will simplify the spec quite a bit | 12:38 |
| spot | mattiasellert: what do you think about that? | 12:39 |
| abadger1999 | Shold be able to use %if 0%{?fedora} >= 9, yes? | 12:39 |
| spot | abadger1999: yep. | 12:39 |
| spot | aside from that macro issue, i'm inclined to +1 here. its obvious a lot of effort went into this draft. | 12:40 |
| abadger1999 | things that aren't in/differ from the Guidelines: | 12:41 |
| abadger1999 | "Obtaining source" -- upstream provides a tarball but it's huge and silly about what it provides | 12:41 |
| abadger1999 | doc packages: separate subpackage regardless of size | 12:41 |
| abadger1999 | the setup packages explanation | 12:41 |
| abadger1999 | information about using gpt and what gpt files are. | 12:42 |
| abadger1999 | So definitely some new stuff. | 12:42 |
| spot | since the docs come in their own gpt file listing, i'm inclined to permit the subpackages by default, regardless of size | 12:42 |
| spot | we generally permit the maintainers discretion on such matters | 12:42 |
| spot | if it is absurd, it will get pointed out during review | 12:43 |
| rdieter | good stuff by the looks of it, +1 here too | 12:43 |
| abadger1999 | I think this is a good thing to have: +1 | 12:44 |
| spot | +1, with the old fedora macros removed | 12:44 |
| tibbs | I'm looking to see if there's anything else that could be simplified. | 12:46 |
| spot | okay. | 12:46 |
| tibbs | The %install section in the first template is really scary. Is all of that actually needed for a typical library package? | 12:46 |
| delero | +1 | 12:47 |
| <-- mclasen has left this channel ("There must be some way out of here."). | 12:47 | |
| spot | tibbs: it seems to be, but it is also well commented | 12:48 |
| tibbs | I mean, a simple pushd at the top could shorten a lot of those macros. | 12:48 |
| abadger1999 | mattiasellert: Perhaps this one is specific to a specific package? # Remove unwanted documentation | 12:50 |
| * spot wonders if mattiasellert is still with us. :) | 12:52 | |
| mattiasellert | Not really - some versions of doxygen create a bunch of crap. | 12:52 |
| tibbs | We should document which versions. | 12:52 |
| tibbs | Otherwise we get cargo cult specfiles. | 12:52 |
| tibbs | "The template said that I need this. I have no idea if it really does anything." | 12:53 |
| mattiasellert | OK, I'll compile a list. | 12:54 |
| spot | so, it seems like there are three things: A) the spec tool (and templates) needs to limit disttag macro use to rhel and fedora >= 9 | 12:55 |
| spot | B) the spec tool should use pushd/popd to simplify the %install section | 12:55 |
| spot | (and templates) | 12:55 |
| spot | C) documenting the versions of doxygen that need to be cleaned up after | 12:55 |
| spot | anything i missed? | 12:56 |
| tibbs | "B" only if it makes sense. It might not. Another possibility would be to stuff $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/globus/packages/%{_name} in a macro. | 12:56 |
| spot | tibbs: that would be another way to simplify it | 12:57 |
| spot | mattiasellert: are you willing to make those changes? | 12:57 |
| mattiasellert | Yes, I will look into adopting these suggestions. | 12:58 |
| spot | okay, then lets table this for next meeting, pending those changes. | 12:58 |
| spot | if they end up being done sooner, we can almost certainly do a vote over email | 12:58 |
| spot | the next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Compiler_Flags_%28draft%29 | 12:59 |
| tibbs | Is there an "is 64-bit" macro predefined by RPM? | 12:59 |
| spot | tibbs: there was talk of making one, but i don't think it happened | 12:59 |
| rdieter | my usual test for 64bitness is %if "%{_lib}" == "lib64" | 12:59 |
| spot | rdieter: that isn't true on ia64 | 12:59 |
| tibbs | Because the leading %ifarch is bound to give us problems. | 12:59 |
| rdieter | lovely. | 13:00 |
| tibbs | __isa_bits | 13:00 |
| spot | ahh, you could use __isa_bits | 13:00 |
| spot | but only on fedora, not epel | 13:00 |
| rdieter | woo | 13:00 |
| spot | as to the Compiler Flags draft... i think i agree with Ralf. (shocking, i know) | 13:02 |
| tibbs | Yeah, the guidelines don't need to be a howto document. | 13:02 |
| tibbs | What prompted this draft? | 13:02 |
| spot | i think the 0 size debuginfo packages did | 13:02 |
| spot | the advice in the draft isn't wrong, but it isn't right for all packages, and i'd be concerned that reviewers might start expecting to see CFLAGS= in packages where it isn't needed | 13:04 |
| abadger1999 | yeah. the chain was 0 size debuginfo; How do I get %{optflags} into my build? Here's how. Why isn't that in the Guidelines? | 13:04 |
| tibbs | Because that's not what Guidelines are for? | 13:04 |
| spot | a separate document on "how to ensure you are using optflags in your build" would be valuable | 13:05 |
| abadger1999 | Despite: "Most C, C++, and Fortran programs will pick up the correct compiler flags if you use a macro that automatically sets them to build the package, such as %configure or %cmake" ? | 13:05 |
| spot | but i'm not convinced it belongs in the guideline | 13:05 |
| tibbs | The guidelines say that the compiler flags must be correct. It doesn't tell you how to read makefiles and edit them if necessary | 13:05 |
| tibbs | abadger1999: So I guess that's a proposal for stripping that sentence from the guidelines, which I would agree with. | 13:06 |
| rdieter | can the guidelines link-to or refer to this proposal (or something like it) for further details? | 13:06 |
| tibbs | The problem is that we're sort of schizophrenic on the issue, because we include specfile templates and such. | 13:06 |
| spot | rdieter: absolutely | 13:06 |
| spot | i would much rather let this live in Packagers/ | 13:07 |
| spot | and link to it from the Guidelines | 13:07 |
| rdieter | better | 13:07 |
| spot | so, i will formally -1 on those grounds | 13:07 |
| tibbs | Agreed. | 13:08 |
| spot | okay, thats all the items on today's agenda | 13:08 |
| spot | any other items? | 13:08 |
| spot | i am 7 minutes late for the board meeting | 13:08 |
| abadger1999 | Not that I can think of. | 13:09 |
| tibbs | Meeting time again. Hans has complained on-list that the time won't work for him, but he hasn't provided a list of times that work for him. | 13:09 |
| spot | so i am closing this out. | 13:09 |
| tibbs | The same for Ralf. I'm not sure what to do. | 13:09 |
| spot | ah yes, everyone be sure to send in your times | 13:09 |
| abadger1999 | rdieter, delero: Can you guys be sure to send in the times that work for you? | 13:09 |
| delero | will do | 13:09 |
| rdieter | abadger1999: consider me 100% flexible, I can make pretty much any time | 13:09 |
| spot | tibbs: i'll talk to Hans, as to Ralf.... well. i'm not sure how we can get it from him. | 13:09 |
| spot | rdieter: except for the KDE SIG meeting time! | 13:10 |
| rdieter | we can move, that too, if needed | 13:10 |
| spot | fair enough. | 13:10 |
| spot | okay, meeting done! | 13:12 |
| spot | thanks everyone | 13:12 |
| abadger1999 | thanks for running it | 13:12 |