April 2016 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[opensuse-packaging] misleading generated "bugfixes" comment in spec file
by Johannes Meixner 20 Apr '16

20 Apr '16

Hello, I am only the messenger: Internally at SUSE a developer was wondering about the automatically generated comment in our spec files: ------------------------------------------------------------------- # Please submit bugfixes or comments via http://bugs.opensuse.org/ # ------------------------------------------------------------------- It lead to a discussion at SUSE whether or not that comment actually makes sense in our spec files. One of the questions was that information whereto submit bugfixes or comments should be different for users of SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) products - for them it should not be http://bugs.opensuse.org/ but https://scc.suse.com/support/requests On the other hand any users (regardless of openSUSE or SLE) if they are looking for information whereto submit bugfixes or comments would normally not get the source RPM and therein read the comment in the spec file so that such a comment in the spec file is probably "mostly useless" and misleading or even plain wrong for SLE users. Therefore there is the proposal to no longer have that comment in the spec file at all because the spec file is not really the right place to provide such kind of information to users. Now my personal opinion: I agree to no longer have that comment in the spec file. I think what rpm reports for installed packages should show appropriate information to users. FYI what rpm reports for installed packages on openSUSE Tumbleweed and openSUSE Leap 42.1 versus SLES 12-SP1 and SLES 11 for the installed package "bash" that is used here only as an example: ------------------------------------------------------------ # cat /etc/os-release NAME=openSUSE VERSION="Tumbleweed" VERSION_ID="20160406" ... # rpm -qi bash ... Packager : http://bugs.opensuse.org Vendor : openSUSE URL : http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/bash.html ------------------------------------------------------------ # cat /etc/os-release NAME="openSUSE Leap" VERSION="42.1" ... # rpm -qi bash ... Packager : http://bugs.opensuse.org Vendor : openSUSE URL : http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/bash.html ------------------------------------------------------------ # cat /etc/os-release NAME="SLES" VERSION="12-SP1" ... # rpm -qi bash ... Packager : https://www.suse.com/ Vendor : SUSE LLC <https://www.suse.com/> URL : http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/bash.html ------------------------------------------------------------ # cat /etc/SuSE-release SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (i586) VERSION = 11 # rpm -qi bash ... Vendor : SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nuernberg, Germany Packager : http://bugs.opensuse.org URL : http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/bash.html ------------------------------------------------------------ Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX GmbH - GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

6 10

[opensuse-packaging] pwdutils?
by Nathan Cutler 17 Apr '16

17 Apr '16

In ceph we have to create the "ceph" user/group if it doesn't exist. We are doing this in the %pre scriptlet of the ceph-common package. I followed the instructions at https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Users_and_Groups but today I realized that, although the instructions say to do: Requires(pre): pwdutils There is no such package . . . ? The useradd and groupadd binaries are in the package "shadow" so I'm wondering if it shouldn't say "Requires(pre): shadow" Thanks, Nathan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 6

[opensuse-packaging] RFC: packaging guidelines change: Web Applications
by Ludwig Nussel 11 Apr '16

11 Apr '16

Hi, https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Web_Applications suggest to package "web applications" to /srv/www/%name. I see two major problems with that 1. /srv is considered admin space so packages should not mess with it. Citing FHS¹: "... no program should rely on a specific subdirectory structure of /srv existing or data necessarily being stored in /srv ... Distributions must take care not to remove locally placed files in these directories without administrator permission" 2. For the reason that admins are expected to put files in /srv that are not tracked by package management, /srv is a default btrfs subvolume. That means anything installed in /srv is excluded from the default system snapshots. Ie rollbacks of packages that install code in /srv won't have any effect and the rpm database would not reflect what's actually running anymore. Therefore I'd like to propose to change the section to the following: Web applications packaged in openSUSE should place their their files in /etc, /usr, /var etc depending on type just like any other application would do. A package must not install, remove or otherwise modify /srv content as it's use is reserved to the admin according to FHS¹. It's ok to allow the admin to configure the software to use /srv of course. cu Ludwig [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSY… -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.com/ SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 14