Dear Factory contributors and packagers,
As openSUSE 12.2 is frozen and Factory is 'open to go wild' again, I
would like to announce that the packaging guidelines have some
extensions (not really new) that will be stricter enforced than they
used to be.
Currently a common rule to be 'ignored' or packagers are not aware is
around the topics of:
- .Changes entries
- Patches
First, the .changes entry (rpm changelog) surves two purposes:
- News for the user
- History tracking of packaging changes (often referenced in bugs to
verify if a user has the latest packaging bugfixeS).
A simple "Update to version x.y.z" is, as before, not accepted. There
should be some buzz around the update for the user; some major reasons
to the upgrade should be listed
Changes on the package itself should be mentioned in a way that any
other contributor to the same package can follow traces of why
something is the way it is. Commonly, Added (build)dependencies are
interesting to be seen, special hacks to make something work in a
particular way [..]: Always consider that package maintenance is a
distributed task and various contributors need to be able to step up
at will.
Patches:
The rules about patches are listed at
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Patches_guidelines .
Most prominent is likely the mentioning of the patches life cycle,
which forces you to mention additions and removals of patches in the
changelog. As history shows, this can be helpful if a patch got
removed, and later a regression is reported; finding out when a patch
was removed can be crucial in reconstructing feature sets (including
contacting the contributor that dropped it.. which is easily extracted
from the .changes if listed)
The main appeal is to the devel project maintainers / reviewers, to
keep out for those rules, to live according to them, as it is
frustrating for everybody if a package needs to be declined by the
Factory Review team:
- The dev prj maintainer is the one getting the 'decline' (as it was
usually a forwarded request), which often leaves the 'fixing' to the
devel project maintainers, where the 'originator' of the fix would
have been willing to actually do that...
And the Factory Review team also prefers to see complying submissions
to having to reject SRs... reject is not fun for anybody!
Looking forward to many more SRs to accept!
Dominique / DimStar
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
As per https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=793541 it seems
CodeAnalyst needs a new maintainer. Any volunteer?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hi:
I will no longer maintain fix or otherwise care about the "at" daemon,
starting now because I would rather devout my time testing and improving
systemd.timer(5)
So it is now up for grabs.
that's all ;)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
All,
I sent the httrack package to security a couple weeks ago. It builds,
but with a few rpmlint issues.
I thought I would clean up the one about the shared library needing to
be split out to its own package.
I've tried to do that in home:gregfreemyer:branches:security > httrack
The diff is:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/rdiff?opackage=httrack&oproject=security…
I've tried multiple ways to call ldconfig.
But my build always fails with:
[ 218s] libhttrack2.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
(Badness: 300) /usr/lib64/libhtsjava.so.2.0.46
[ 218s] libhttrack2.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
(Badness: 300) /usr/lib64/libhttrack.so.2.0.46
[ 218s] This package contains a library and provides no %post
scriptlet containing a
[ 218s] call to ldconfig.
The spec file currently has:
===
%post
/sbin/ldconfig /usr/lib64
%postun
/sbin/ldconfig /usr/lib64
===
I've tried the basic versions as well.
==
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
==
%post
/sbin/ldconfig
%postun
/sbin/ldconfig
==
Can anyone tell me what's going on?
Thanks
Greg
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
are there any guidelines on how to move programs from one package to
another - while guaranteeing that the program is installed any time
(either by the old or by the new package)?
The case:
su and kill are moved from coreutils to util-linux upstreams.
It'd be "quite not so optimal" if an installation would be left
behind without them ...
Therefore we're trying to add a hack in coreutils.rpm to install the
su binary as su-core, and to create a symlink "su" pointing to it in
the %post script when "su" does not already exist (i.e. is not yet
installed by a newer util-linux.rpm):
%post
test -e %{_bindir}/su || ln -sv su.core %{_bindir}/su
The problem is the order in RPM i.e. when %post is run:
According to my tests, it is obviously run _before_ the old version
of the coreutils package is uninstalled. Thus, su of the old version
is still there, and the symlink is not created. ;-(
D: %post(coreutils-8.21-0.x86_64): scriptlet start
[...]
D: %post(coreutils-8.21-0.x86_64): waitpid(4078) rc 4078 status 0
D: ========== +++ coreutils-8.17-6.2.1 x86_64-linux 0x0
D: erase: coreutils-8.17-6.2.1 has 287 files
Cleaning up / removing...
[...]
D: fini 124755 1 ( 0, 0) 44288 /usr/bin/su
The strangest thing is that RPM seems to behave different during
`osc build` ...
Any ideas?
Thank you & have a nice day,
Berny
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hello all,
openSUSE 12.3 Goldmaster will be released next week, on
Thursday 07 March 2013.
Please submit your packages before Friday afternoon (UTC time) to make
sure they will get included in this release. Leaf packages submitted
during the week-end might also get accepted on Monday.
For a quick overview of the openSUSE Roadmap, please see:
http://en.opensuse.org/Roadmap
Thanks,
--
openSUSE Roadmap Reminder
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hello all,
openSUSE 12.3 RC 2 will be released next week, on
Thursday 28 February 2013.
Please submit your packages before Friday afternoon (UTC time) to make
sure they will get included in this release. Leaf packages submitted
during the week-end might also get accepted on Monday.
For a quick overview of the openSUSE Roadmap, please see:
http://en.opensuse.org/Roadmap
Thanks,
--
openSUSE Roadmap Reminder
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
I’m working on creating a package where the ‘build’ process seems to
depend on being run under a UTF-8 locale. It turns out the the package
when built on the OBS succeeds, but contains an invalid file, due to
improper multibyte handling. I can get the same invalid file by doing a
‘LC_ALL=C make’ on my local system.
Is there a way to make OBS run under a UTF-8 locale, like ‘en_US.UTF-8’?
What is the recommend way of handling problems like this?
--
Karl Ove Hufthammer
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
kami menerima pesanan usb yang bisa di pesan dengan logo perusahaan anda
untuk di jadikan souvenir
untuk info lebih lengkap hubungi kami di email : locanojakarta(a)yahoo.com
terima kasih
Marketing flashdisk
