From gajownik at fedora.pl Sat Feb 4 00:07:36 2006 From: gajownik at fedora.pl (Dawid Gajownik) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:07:36 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] fontname-fonts or fonts-fontname? Message-ID: <43E3F048.1020102@fedora.pl> Hi! Houston, we've got a problem ;) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179439#c7 Do we have any naming guidelines concerning packages with fonts? There is some inconsistency: [y4kk0 at X ~]$ repoquery -qa | grep fonts bitmap-fonts-0:0.3-4.noarch fonts-gujarati-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-tamil-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-bengali-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch kon2-fonts-0:0.3.9b-26.i386 fonts-japanese-0:0.20050222-3.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-syriac-0:6.8.2-1.noarch gentium-fonts-0:1.02-2.noarch hunky-fonts-0:0.3.1-2.fc4.noarch taipeifonts-0:1.2-26.noarch ghostscript-fonts-0:5.50-13.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-100dpi-0:1.0-7.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-arabic-0:1.5-3.noarch mgopen-fonts-0:0.20050515-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch tetex-fonts-0:3.0-9.FC4.i386 fonts-xorg-cyrillic-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-punjabi-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-hebrew-0:0.100-4.noarch fonts-chinese-0:2.15-2.noarch fonts-hebrew-fancy-0:0.101-2.fc4.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-75dpi-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-hindi-0:1.10-2.noarch bitmap-fonts-cjk-0:0.3-4.noarch fonts-xorg-base-0:6.8.2-1.noarch dejavu-fonts-0:2.2-3.fc4.noarch fonts-xorg-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-100dpi-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-korean-0:1.0.11-4.noarch fonts-xorg-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch urw-fonts-0:2.3-1.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-0:1.0-7.noarch mplayer-fonts-0:1.1-0.lvn.3.4.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-75dpi-0:1.0-7.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-truetype-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch bitstream-vera-fonts-0:1.10-5.noarch mathml-fonts-0:1.0-19.fc4.noarch [y4kk0 at X ~]$ Thanks, Dawid -- ^_* From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Feb 4 00:26:01 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:26:01 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] fontname-fonts or fonts-fontname? In-Reply-To: <43E3F048.1020102@fedora.pl> References: <43E3F048.1020102@fedora.pl> Message-ID: <1139012761.7218.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 01:07 +0100, Dawid Gajownik wrote: > Hi! > > Houston, we've got a problem ;) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179439#c7 > > Do we have any naming guidelines concerning packages with fonts? There > is some inconsistency: Any chance you can break those up into Fedora Core and Fedora Extras? I only have any control over the latter. :) ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From gajownik at fedora.pl Sat Feb 4 10:28:28 2006 From: gajownik at fedora.pl (Dawid Gajownik) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:28:28 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] fontname-fonts or fonts-fontname? In-Reply-To: <1139012761.7218.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <43E3F048.1020102@fedora.pl> <1139012761.7218.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43E481CC.5000200@fedora.pl> Dnia 02/04/2006 01:26 AM, U?ytkownik Tom 'spot' Callaway napisa?: > Any chance you can break those up into Fedora Core and Fedora Extras? Shure :) [y4kk0 at X ~]$ repoquery -qa --repoid=extras | grep fonts hunky-fonts-0:0.3.1-2.fc4.noarch gentium-fonts-0:1.02-2.noarch fonts-hebrew-fancy-0:0.101-2.fc4.noarch mgopen-fonts-0:0.20050515-1.noarch mathml-fonts-0:1.0-19.fc4.noarch dejavu-fonts-0:2.2-3.fc4.noarch [y4kk0 at X ~]$ repoquery -qa --repoid=base | grep fonts bitmap-fonts-0:0.3-4.noarch fonts-gujarati-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-tamil-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-75dpi-0:1.0-7.noarch fonts-bengali-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-japanese-0:0.20050222-3.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-syriac-0:6.8.2-1.noarch ghostscript-fonts-0:5.50-13.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-100dpi-0:1.0-7.noarch fonts-arabic-0:1.5-3.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch tetex-fonts-0:3.0-4.i386 fonts-xorg-cyrillic-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-punjabi-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-hebrew-0:0.100-4.noarch fonts-chinese-0:2.15-2.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-75dpi-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-hindi-0:1.10-2.noarch bitmap-fonts-cjk-0:0.3-4.noarch fonts-xorg-base-0:6.8.2-1.noarch taipeifonts-0:1.2-26.noarch fonts-xorg-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-100dpi-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-korean-0:1.0.11-4.noarch fonts-xorg-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-0:1.0-7.noarch kon2-fonts-0:0.3.9b-26.i386 fonts-ISO8859-2-0:1.0-14.noarch urw-fonts-0:2.3-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-truetype-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch bitstream-vera-fonts-0:1.10-5.noarch [y4kk0 at X ~]$ > I only have any control over the latter. :) IMHO it would be nice to have the same rules in Core and in Extras ;) Regards, Dawid -- ^_* From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Feb 4 11:37:29 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:37:29 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] fontname-fonts or fonts-fontname? In-Reply-To: <43E3F048.1020102@fedora.pl> References: <43E3F048.1020102@fedora.pl> Message-ID: <1139053049.24024.10.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le samedi 04 f?vrier 2006 ? 01:07 +0100, Dawid Gajownik a ?crit : > Hi! > > Houston, we've got a problem ;) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179439#c7 > > Do we have any naming guidelines concerning packages with fonts? There > is some inconsistency: Nothing new, the "problem" was discussed when vera got in fedora.us and then again when it was merged upstream (you can look up the bugzilla entries/ ML threads) FC tends to put fonts- first except when it's a subpackage. This helps when you do a stupid sort (but in the days of autodep resolvers the use of basic sort is somehow limited - tools are smarter nowadays) (Note this is a new rule, for a very long time RHL/FC didn't have any particular rule) FE (and yes I have my share of responsibility there) tends to put -fonts last as its more consistent with english, FC font subpackages and external repositories (in the vera case bistream-vera-fonts already existed in the helix gnome repo) My own take is live and let live, the benefits of harmonising are not worth the renaming pains. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From ivazquez at ivazquez.net Wed Feb 8 03:04:17 2006 From: ivazquez at ivazquez.net (Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:04:17 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] fontname-fonts or fonts-fontname? In-Reply-To: <43E3F048.1020102@fedora.pl> References: <43E3F048.1020102@fedora.pl> Message-ID: <1139367857.29459.2.camel@ignacio.lan> On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 01:07 +0100, Dawid Gajownik wrote: > Hi! > > Houston, we've got a problem ;) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179439#c7 I suppose I was a little overzealous in interpreting the Addon Packages rule at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-e865dfbf5ffb4156a1bdf299ace96f48af903a7a. I honestly don't mind it being -fonts. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams http://fedora.ivazquez.net/ gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From orion at cora.nwra.com Sat Feb 18 05:47:45 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:47:45 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] PLEASE HELP - We need a policy for preventing man page name conflicts Message-ID: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> Many packages provide man3 (and other) man pages with generic names. The case in question in ncarg-devel and allegro-devel which both provide man3/line.3.gz. So, what do we do? - package in /usr/share//man/? If so, how to we update MANPATH? How does man handle finding both (all) of the man pages? - rename to something like _? Do we always do this? Only if a file conflicts? Is there an easy way to find conflicts before packaging? - suffixes .3 ? Can man handle this? Please help! -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 Colorado Research Associates/NWRA FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301 http://www.co-ra.com From ivazquez at ivazquez.net Sat Feb 18 06:44:43 2006 From: ivazquez at ivazquez.net (Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:44:43 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] PLEASE HELP - We need a policy for preventing man page name conflicts In-Reply-To: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> References: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <1140245083.2714.6.camel@ignacio.lan> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 22:47 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Many packages provide man3 (and other) man pages with generic names. > The case in question in ncarg-devel and allegro-devel which both provide > man3/line.3.gz. So, what do we do? It's ludicrous to package such man pages. If documentation is generated via doxygen you can set MAN_LINKS to NO in Doxyfile in order to suppress them, otherwise just delete them. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams http://fedora.ivazquez.net/ gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Mon Feb 20 12:39:47 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:39:47 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: PLEASE HELP - We need a policy for preventing man page name conflicts In-Reply-To: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> References: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: Orion Poplawski wrote: > Many packages provide man3 (and other) man pages with generic names. The > case in question in ncarg-devel and allegro-devel which both provide > man3/line.3.gz. So, what do we do? > > - package in /usr/share//man/? If so, how to we update > MANPATH? How does man handle finding both (all) of the man pages? IMO, no. It's not worth the extra hassle. > - rename to something like _? +1 > Do we always do this? Only if a file conflicts? Yep. >Is there an easy way to find conflicts before > packaging? Not that I'm aware. It should be rare enough that it can be handled on a case-by-case basis. > - suffixes .3 ? Can man handle this? Another possibility, but I'm unfamiliar with that convention. -- Rex From rdieter at math.unl.edu Mon Feb 20 13:06:04 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:06:04 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: PLEASE HELP - We need a policy for preventing man page name conflicts In-Reply-To: References: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <43F9BEBC.5080204@math.unl.edu> Rex Dieter wrote: > Orion Poplawski wrote: > >> Many packages provide man3 (and other) man pages with generic names. >> The case in question in ncarg-devel and allegro-devel which both >> provide man3/line.3.gz. So, what do we do? >> ... >> - rename to something like _? >> Do we always do this? Only if a file conflicts? > Yep. Oops, ambiguous answer. Yep, rename for the latter case (only for conflicts). -- Rex From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Feb 20 13:38:39 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:38:39 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: PLEASE HELP - We need a policy for preventing man page name conflicts In-Reply-To: References: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <1140442719.21764.570.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 06:39 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Orion Poplawski wrote: > > Many packages provide man3 (and other) man pages with generic names. The > > case in question in ncarg-devel and allegro-devel which both provide > > man3/line.3.gz. So, what do we do? > > - rename to something like _? > > +1 Works for section 3 but not for section 1 (application man packages). There, each man page should match the name of the tool it is trying to describe. But, if section 1 man pages clash, the apps probably also do. > >Is there an easy way to find conflicts before > > packaging? > > Not that I'm aware. It's close to impossible, because man page conflicts normally occur at installation time, due to parallel installations of alternative implementations (or badly designed packages). > > - suffixes .3 ? Can man handle this? > > Another possibility, but I'm unfamiliar with that convention. It's the traditional standard on many non-Linux *nixes. Unfortunately Linux' "man" doesn't handle these sufficiently well. [Install Inventor-devel and Coin2-devel from FE, if you'd like to experiment with this convention. .3iv vs. .3] Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Feb 20 14:40:25 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:40:25 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: PLEASE HELP - We need a policy for preventing man page name conflicts In-Reply-To: <43F9CF85.4010502@cornell.edu> References: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> <1140442719.21764.570.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <43F9CF85.4010502@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <1140446425.21764.581.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 09:17 -0500, Ivan Gyurdiev wrote: > > Works for section 3 but not for section 1 (application man packages). > > There, each man page should match the name of the tool it is trying to > > describe. > > > > But, if section 1 man pages clash, the apps probably also do. > > > And in section 3 they don't? section 3 contains library API docs, corresponding to libraries. While apps must be unique, and libraries and the APIs not necessarily are. There may well be reasons why one API can be implemented by several library. > I suggest efforts would be better directed at fixing the real problem - > i.e. the library namespace. This doesn't work - Check the Inventor and Coin2 examples I tried to point you to. They both implement the same API (Coin2 is a clone of Inventor), both packages can be installed in parallel and do not conflict. Both are licensed differently (LGPL vs. GPL), nor are both libraries technically 100% compatible. I.e. there are good reasons to have them both. Ralf From orion at cora.nwra.com Mon Feb 20 18:38:38 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:38:38 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: PLEASE HELP - We need a policy for preventing man page name conflicts In-Reply-To: <1140442719.21764.570.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> <1140442719.21764.570.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <43FA0CAE.8050309@cora.nwra.com> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 06:39 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Orion Poplawski wrote: >>> Is there an easy way to find conflicts before >>> packaging? >> Not that I'm aware. > It's close to impossible, because man page conflicts normally occur at > installation time, due to parallel installations of alternative > implementations (or badly designed packages). > I was hoping for some repoquery magic.... Anyone? -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 Colorado Research Associates/NWRA FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301 http://www.co-ra.com From orion at cora.nwra.com Mon Feb 20 18:45:52 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:45:52 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: PLEASE HELP - We need a policy for preventing man page name conflicts In-Reply-To: <43F9CF85.4010502@cornell.edu> References: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> <1140442719.21764.570.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <43F9CF85.4010502@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <43FA0E60.40002@cora.nwra.com> Ivan Gyurdiev wrote: > > I suggest efforts would be better directed at fixing the real problem - > i.e. the library namespace. > > Having an API that calls functions line() and such means it's just a > question of time before you run into header conflicts where a program > attempts to include two headers with the same function name (or > statically link against two libraries with the same symbol, whether the > function is used or not)... or link against the library and have a local > function called line() defined. > > I suppose programming language makes a difference here, but at least > this should apply to C code. > Yes, things should get fixed upstream. But in the meantime, we're packaging this stuff and need a policy for a workaround. I'm inclined to rename all man3 functions to ncarg_ to fix my particular issue. I'll file a note upstream as well. -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 Colorado Research Associates/NWRA FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301 http://www.co-ra.com From pmatilai at laiskiainen.org Tue Feb 21 13:30:44 2006 From: pmatilai at laiskiainen.org (Panu Matilainen) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:30:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: PLEASE HELP - We need a policy for preventing man page name conflicts In-Reply-To: <43FA0CAE.8050309@cora.nwra.com> References: <43F6B501.1040105@cora.nwra.com> <1140442719.21764.570.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <43FA0CAE.8050309@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 06:39 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> Orion Poplawski wrote: >>>> Is there an easy way to find conflicts before packaging? >>> Not that I'm aware. >> It's close to impossible, because man page conflicts normally occur at >> installation time, due to parallel installations of alternative >> implementations (or badly designed packages). >> > > I was hoping for some repoquery magic.... Anyone? Well you can pass a list of files to repoquery to see if they match. Eg something like repoquery -f `rpm -qpd ` If you get matches, you have a conflict - or at least a potential conflict. - Panu -