[opensuse-packaging] Editing openSUSE packages
There are some questions I face every time I create a submitreq against a package created by Novell/SUSE. a) ready file: If I remember correctly this is imported from the old autobuild. I can and even should remove it, true? b) Changelog: It's common that there is a .changes file but at the same time the spec file has a copy of it. I can and even should remove the changelog from the spec file and continue editing the .changes file, true? c) The copyright headers: what about them? I suppose they were created automatically... now they just are a problem to me. - Are they really needed??? I would really prefer them to be removed. I don't have any problem asigning copyright to openSUSE or Novell, but if they can be removed it's something less to worry about. If aren't removed - I found one that says "Copyright (c) 2007"... should I change it to "Copyright (c) 2007-2009" or to "Copyright (c) 2009"? Any specific format? I don't really know if it's important from a law POV. - "spec file for package <package> (Version <version>)". I really hate to have an extra place where I need to change the version, it's really needed? d) "# norootforbuild". It's normally there. http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/SUSE_Package_Conventions/RPM_Style#1.2._nor... says it's obsolete. There are places where it's used: http://en.opensuse.org/GNOME/Packaging/Simple_library_package . Just for uniformity, we keep or remove it? What "obsolete" means? Is rpmbuild ignoring it? -) %description... well, this hasn't nothing to do with old Novell/SUSE packages. But since I'm writing this. There is any policy about the line length? I normally use 80 chars lines, manually. Not sure if kwrite/kate can help with this. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Hi, I'm no Novell employee so probably know all the details but I can try. Cristian Morales Vega schrieb:
There are some questions I face every time I create a submitreq against a package created by Novell/SUSE.
So you talk about submitreq which should end up in Factory aka the official openSUSE?
a) ready file: If I remember correctly this is imported from the old autobuild. I can and even should remove it, true?
Currently it will reappear AFAIK if you remove it. So something still creates it when it hits Factory.
b) Changelog: It's common that there is a .changes file but at the same time the spec file has a copy of it. I can and even should remove the changelog from the spec file and continue editing the .changes file, true?
No need to remove the changelog in the spec file since it gets readded automatically when committed to Factory from information in *.changes.
c) The copyright headers: what about them? I suppose they were created automatically... now they just are a problem to me. - Are they really needed??? I would really prefer them to be removed. I don't have any problem asigning copyright to openSUSE or Novell, but if they can be removed it's something less to worry about. If aren't removed - I found one that says "Copyright (c) 2007"... should I change it to "Copyright (c) 2007-2009" or to "Copyright (c) 2009"? Any specific format? I don't really know if it's important from a law POV. - "spec file for package <package> (Version <version>)". I really hate to have an extra place where I need to change the version, it's really needed?
Again once the package goes to Factory all the information and headers are changed. So you don't need to fiddle with it at all since you have no control speaking for Factory.
d) "# norootforbuild". It's normally there. http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/SUSE_Package_Conventions/RPM_Style#1.2._nor... says it's obsolete. There are places where it's used: http://en.opensuse.org/GNOME/Packaging/Simple_library_package . Just for uniformity, we keep or remove it? What "obsolete" means? Is rpmbuild ignoring it?
norootforbuild is the default so it's not needed anymore. I think there is "userootforbuild" which does the opposite.
-) %description... well, this hasn't nothing to do with old Novell/SUSE packages. But since I'm writing this. There is any policy about the line length? I normally use 80 chars lines, manually. Not sure if kwrite/kate can help with this.
I'm not sure but for completeness: For Factory packages you don't have control at all since the description is overwritten with data in some SUSE internal database (as summary and license). Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
2009/5/6 Wolfgang Rosenauer <wolfgang@rosenauer.org>:
Hi,
I'm no Novell employee so probably know all the details but I can try.
Cristian Morales Vega schrieb:
There are some questions I face every time I create a submitreq against a package created by Novell/SUSE.
So you talk about submitreq which should end up in Factory aka the official openSUSE?
Yes. Even if there are some packages that were dropped from Factory and mantained elsewhere for which this also applies.
a) ready file: If I remember correctly this is imported from the old autobuild. I can and even should remove it, true?
Currently it will reappear AFAIK if you remove it. So something still creates it when it hits Factory.
I though this wasn't the case anymore since the distro was started to be built in the OBS. But if it's the case fine, I don't need to worry about it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Donning my legal hat for a Minute (which does not make me a lawyer at all). On May 06, 09 20:50:31 +0200, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
c) The copyright headers: what about them? I suppose they were created automatically... now they just are a problem to me. - Are they really needed??? I would really prefer them to be removed.
Yes. A spec file without a copyright header is in Neverland. Novell and everybody else needs to know that it is a distributable thing.
I don't have any problem asigning copyright to openSUSE or Novell, but if they can be removed it's something less to worry about.
You should not assign your copyright to anybody, unless specifically asked for. A spec file that says 'Copyright Novell' does so for historic reasons, when every packager was a Novell employee. But if Novell is already in the copyright line, don't delete it, only add to the line. Or add additional copyright lines. If we - Novell - want copyright assignment, we should say so prominently, and not try to gain it by enforcing a silly header.
If aren't removed - I found one that says "Copyright (c) 2007"... should I change it to "Copyright (c) 2007-2009" or to "Copyright (c) 2009"? Any specific format? I don't really know if it's important from a law POV.
Changing a 2007 into a 2009 is not good. Make this read 2007-2009 if you have been working on it during the years, or make it read 2007,2009 if you believe nobody touched it in 2008. For a trivial specfile or those that were created without much human input, all this may not really matter, due to the lack of copyrightable substance. But over time, a specfile can become a complex piece of artwork, then it suddenly could matter.
- "spec file for package <package> (Version <version>)". I really hate to have an extra place where I need to change the version, it's really needed?
I'd drop the version number there, if it is not updated automatically.
Again once the package goes to Factory all the information and headers are changed. So you don't need to fiddle with it at all since you have no control speaking for Factory.
If this is really the case, then we - Packagers - still need a way to correct false headers. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Juergen Weigert schrieb:
Donning my legal hat for a Minute (which does not make me a lawyer at all).
On May 06, 09 20:50:31 +0200, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
Again once the package goes to Factory all the information and headers are changed. So you don't need to fiddle with it at all since you have no control speaking for Factory.
If this is really the case, then we - Packagers - still need a way to correct false headers.
The last time I checked my copyright additions were removed again after the changed package appeared in Factory. In the sense of your mail that really needs to be fixed (if it's still the case) since removing other people's copyright notices could be considered problematic. So how about the Factory build people check their search-and-replace logic to make it possible to add third party copyright notices (again: if it doesn't work already, otherwise ignore me ;-)) Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 20:50:31 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer:
Hi,
I'm no Novell employee so probably know all the details but I can try.
Cristian Morales Vega schrieb:
There are some questions I face every time I create a submitreq against a package created by Novell/SUSE.
So you talk about submitreq which should end up in Factory aka the official openSUSE?
a) ready file: If I remember correctly this is imported from the old autobuild. I can and even should remove it, true?
Currently it will reappear AFAIK if you remove it. So something still creates it when it hits Factory.
right, it will go away in future anyway.
b) Changelog: It's common that there is a .changes file but at the same time the spec file has a copy of it. I can and even should remove the changelog from the spec file and continue editing the .changes file, true?
No need to remove the changelog in the spec file since it gets readded automatically when committed to Factory from information in *.changes.
right, actually the replacement of the %changes section happens with each build in any project, if there is a .changes file.
c) The copyright headers: what about them? I suppose they were created automatically... now they just are a problem to me. - Are they really needed??? I would really prefer them to be removed. I don't have any problem asigning copyright to openSUSE or Novell, but if they can be removed it's something less to worry about. If aren't removed - I found one that says "Copyright (c) 2007"... should I change it to "Copyright (c) 2007-2009" or to "Copyright (c) 2009"? Any specific format? I don't really know if it's important from a law POV. - "spec file for package <package> (Version <version>)". I really hate to have an extra place where I need to change the version, it's really needed?
Again once the package goes to Factory all the information and headers are changed. So you don't need to fiddle with it at all since you have no control speaking for Factory.
A copyright header is always set on check in time into Factory. But you should be able to add yourself as Copyright owner and this must not go away.
d) "# norootforbuild". It's normally there. http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/SUSE_Package_Conventions/RPM_Style#1.2._ norootforbuild says it's obsolete. There are places where it's used: http://en.opensuse.org/GNOME/Packaging/Simple_library_package . Just for uniformity, we keep or remove it? What "obsolete" means? Is rpmbuild ignoring it?
norootforbuild is the default so it's not needed anymore. I think there is "userootforbuild" which does the opposite.
Yes, but we do not allow this by default in OBS. We could actually, it would not be a security problem, but we so because source rpms which can build without root permissions are usually less ugly and more trustworthy :) (It is a bad when someone builds a source rpm on his workstation and that one modifies the system somehow).
-) %description... well, this hasn't nothing to do with old Novell/SUSE packages. But since I'm writing this. There is any policy about the line length? I normally use 80 chars lines, manually. Not sure if kwrite/kate can help with this.
I'm not sure but for completeness: For Factory packages you don't have control at all since the description is overwritten with data in some SUSE internal database (as summary and license).
Yes, but this is about to go away. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Adrian Schröter -
Cristian Morales Vega -
Juergen Weigert -
Wolfgang Rosenauer