license of the binary policy
by Jilayne Lovejoy
Hi Fedora legal and packaging,
I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups.
The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec file
(as described at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of
the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask."
As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora licensing,
it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the following:
1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice?
2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be
helpful?
3) should this policy be different, and if so, how?
4) any other related thoughts or observations
Thanks!
Jilayne
1 month, 3 weeks
RPM 4.19: Dynamic subpackages with Python extras
by Miro Hrončok
Hello Python packagers.
RPM 4.19 introduces this feature:
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/dynamic_specs.html
I decided to write this email to gather my thoughts. I believe that with this,
we can turn manual Python extras subpackages like this:
%package -n python3-...
Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python3-... %_description
%pyproject_extras_subpkg -n python3-xxx extra1 extra2
(See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Extras
for what that means.)
Into something like this:
%package -n python3-...
Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python3-... %_description
...
%install
%pyproject_install
...
%pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs -n python3-xxx
The %pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs macro would parse the installed
.dist-info directory to find out what extras are available and generate
subpackages for all of them.
(Obviously, the macro name is open up for discussion.)
----------------
An API would be required to exclude extras:
- that are not useful for other packages
(for example build/development requirements, commonly named dev, doc or test)
- that have requirements that are not packaged in Fedora
For example (mimicking the API of %pyproject_check_import):
%pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs -n python3-xxx -e test -e 'nonfree*'
----------------
However, extras are also currently manually passed to %pyproject_buildrequires:
%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires -x extra1 -x extra2 -x test
It should already be possible to implement automatic extras discovery in
%pyproject_buildrequires with older RPM versions and allow it to be used this way:
%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> -X 'nonfree*'
RPM macros can only accept short flags, so <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> can
either be -x '*' (if we start treating -x values as globs, which is backwards
compatible and probably generally useful), or a single-letter switch such as -a
(but honestly we are running out of meaningful letters).
(When -X is used, <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> can probably be implied. However,
an explicit form needs to exist for packages that don't need to exclude any
extras at all.)
Eventually, I'd like to make <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> the default, once RPM
4.19 is omnipresent.
----------------
Combined, this would mean that the packager needs to:
1. specify extras that are not supposed to be used as BRs
2. specify extras that are not supposed to be packaged
In the ideal word (2) is a superset of (1).
Should %pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs somehow inherit the -Xes from
%pyproject_buildrequires?
When a package has extra1, extra2, nonfree1, nonfree2 and test extras, one
could do:
%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> -X 'nonfree*'
...
%pyproject_install
...
%pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs -X test
That would mean:
- extra1 is BRed and packaged
- extra2 is BRed and packaged
- test is BRed but not packaged
- nonfree1 is neither
- nonfree2 is neither
----------------
Alternatively the information could be supplied by %globals:
%global _python_ignored_extras nonfree*
%global _python_unpackaged_extras test
However, I somehow dislike this approach.
----------------
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
12 months
Re: RPM 4.18.1 released!
by Miro Hrončok
On 14. 03. 23 12:27, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> This is a bug fix release addressing a number of regressions and other issues.
> Highlights include:
>
> * Preserve packages bit-by-bit when adding and then removing signatures
> * Fix install of block and character special files
> * Disable debuginfod server lookups during package builds
> * Plugin fixes (fapolicyd and selinux)
> * Various OpenPGP and macro parser fixes
>
> Details and download info at
>
> https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.1
Hello.
> Restore BuildRequires check in rpmbuild -bp (regression in 4.15.0)
Does this mean I cannot run rpmbuild -bp (and hence e.g. fedpkg prep in Fedora)
without installing all the build dependencies? Or did I understand that wrongly?
> Issue a deprecation warning on %patchN syntax
Is there a timeframe for actual removal? There are ~10k such lines in ~3.3k
Fedora Rawhide packages.
> Don’t embed CPU count of build system in packages (#2343)
I worry that the way this was fixed is probably a breaking change. Packages out
there use e.g. SPHINXOPTS='%{?_smp_mflags}' (~50 Fedora packages) which will
turn into SPHINXOPTS='-j${RPM_BUILD_NCPUS}' which will not work.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
1 year, 2 months
Automatic virtual provides for RPM macros?
by Miro Hrončok
Hello,
today at Nest, somebody said "unfortunately, there is no way to tell what
package to install to get a particular RPM macro".
I think that having an RPM provides generator for "rpm-macro(__python3)" or
similar should be a fairly simple exercise.
Would you folks consider that useful?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
1 year, 2 months
