Bug 530128
| Summary: | munge-libs missing from munge epel packaging | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | Christopher D. Maestas <cdmaestas> |
| Component: | munge | Assignee: | Steve Traylen <steve.traylen> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | el5 | CC: | cdunlap, mtasaka, steve.traylen |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 0.5.8-8.el5 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-11-20 23:26:11 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Christopher D. Maestas
2009-10-21 16:18:29 UTC
Well, the fact that "the upstream's spec file creates these binary rpms" is not a valid reason for the claim that Fedora should follow such packaging way. Fedora has its own packaging guidelines and quite often they may conflict with spec files provided by software upsteam developers. Mamoru, Yes I agree entirely of course and mentioned in bug #506355 that since it did not conflict with the Fedora's guidelines its a reasonable request. There are of course many packages with -libs and of course it has some multilib advantages as well. I'm happy to make the change. Steve The changes are now in CVS. I'll wait a couple of days before building in case of further comment. Steve Ah, dependencies are opposite. In this case
- munge should have "Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}"
(because the dependency is actually so).
- Also -devel subpackage dependency should be changed to
"Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}" (-devel package
actually requires -libs subpackage in this case)
- COPYING files or so should be moved to -libs subpackage, because
it is possible that we install only -libs package and don't install
munge package now (after dependency is fixed).
Thankyou, I had the right idea but did it wrong. Thanks very much for checking. I spend a good portion of my life packaging at work and I need to slow down and think for fedora more in fact. Lesson learned. Everything in Comment #4 implemented. In CVS again. I'm just curious what the difference is between the epel munge.spec and what is distributed with the munge.spec from the main site. Perhaps we could encourage munge authors to create spec files that are more fedora friendly too? Not a lot I expect in the end but it must follow guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines I purposefully ignored your spec in first instance to stay close to the guidelines though I did look at it afterwards. See for yourself: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/munge/devel/ And for your last point of course yed indeed though of course not everyone maintains a .spec file in the first place. Steve. munge-0.5.8-8.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/munge-0.5.8-8.el4 munge-0.5.8-8.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/munge-0.5.8-8.el5 munge-0.5.8-8.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/munge-0.5.8-8.fc10 munge-0.5.8-8.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/munge-0.5.8-8.fc11 Note to self: the f12 update needs doing after release of f12. (In reply to comment #12) > Note to self: > the f12 update needs doing after release of f12. If you want, please submit a request to rel-eng team to get the newest munge tagged as f12-final on: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ munge-0.5.8-8.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update munge'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0781 munge-0.5.8-8.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/munge-0.5.8-8.fc12 munge-0.5.8-8.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. munge-0.5.8-8.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. munge-0.5.8-8.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. munge-0.5.8-8.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. munge-0.5.8-8.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |