[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-25 23:56:25 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- man2html-1.6-7.g.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- man2html-1.6-8.g.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-18 03:41:47 EDT --- man2html-1.6-5.g.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/man2html-1.6-5.g.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-18 03:39:08 EDT --- man2html-1.6-5.g.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/man2html-1.6-5.g.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-18 03:47:58 EDT --- man2html-1.6-5.g.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/man2html-1.6-5.g.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-18 16:25:40 EDT --- man2html-1.6-5.g.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 13:29:10
EDT ---
From the diff between -3 and -4:
+
+%post
+#clear out the cache directory so all future pages are regenerated with the
new
build
+rm -f %{_prefix}/cache/man2html/* || :
+
+
%{_prefix} here is wrong. You did want %{_localstatedir}, but you could use
/var instead and everywhere else (not just in the patch files).
Again, macros here only add value, if you substituted their values also in the
source code. That isn't done for /usr and /var, and not /etc either, so
hardcoding /usr and /var (and derived paths) would make sense and would be
acceptable, too. Rule of thumb: If you rpmbuild --rebuild --define foo bar
… the src.rpm, the redefined macro values ought to find their way into the
built rpms, too. If that isn't the case, the builds are broken due to a
mismatch between paths in %files section, scriptlets, and in files included in
the package.
The wrong prefix can be fixed in Fedora package git, of course.
Welcome to the packager group!
[...]
Apart from that, installing the builds of man2html-1.6-4.g.fc17.src.rpm now
makes the three CGI executables work by default. hman also works great now
using xdg-open. (Neat with an already open Firefox, isn't it?). man2html-core
succeeds, too. Also the -h option.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 18:47:06 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: man2html Short Description: Convert man pages to HTML Owners: patches Branches: f16 f17 el5 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 22:16:03 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #14 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-05-13 19:20:53 EDT --- This fixes everything mentioned previously: Spec: http://tchol.org/fedora/man2html.spec SRPM: http://tchol.org/fedora/man2html-1.6-4.g.fc17.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4074599 rpmlint output is identical except for a new hardcoded-library-path warning for the selinux %post(un) scriptlets. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #15 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-05-13 19:32:40 EDT --- I filed bug 821286 for proper SELinux support but didn't block this against it since httpd_unconfined_script_exec_t fixes it in the interim. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2012-05-11 05:24:21 EDT --- # yum list \*-base|wc -l 53 # yum list \*-core|wc -l 83 Just was curious about it. ;) [...] LYNXCGI is disabled by default for security reasons. (See /etc/lynx.cfg at line 964 for the details.) Then it's not suitable as a default. elinks has been the much more common text-based browser anyway. Also in Fedora. IMHO it would be better to default hman to calling `xdg-open` Sounds plausible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2012-05-10 08:34:27 EDT --- So, here are a couple of findings not limited to the items on the ReviewGuidelines page. This thing is non-trivial to review, but I had expected that. [...] * The debian/NEWS file mentions a man2html-base package instead of man2html-core. Indeed, the Debian packages search lists it as man2html-base. That suggests following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming * Licensing, minor issues: Files man2html/man2html.c and debian/sources/man2html.cgi.c do not explicitly refer to GPL, just: Permission is granted to distribute, modify and use this program as long as this comment is not removed or changed. The utils.c file only mentions GPL. Following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses that would result in a license tag: GPL+ File manwhatis.c contains a GPLv2 (or later) header. So, no big issue. License clarification would be NTH: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification * Format string warnings in build output! More often than not these are worth taking a look at, also to avoid surprises on big endian platforms. * Run-time testing: $ hman 7 locale /usr/bin/hman: line 90: lynx: command not found So, if lynx isn't a requirement, the browser ought to be configurable. Let's see: $ export MANHTMLPAGER=firefox ; hman 7 locale -- http://localhost/cgi-bin/man/man2html?7+locale The requested URL /cgi-bin/man/man2html was not found on this server. Now returning to lynx after a yum -y install lynx: $ hman 7 locale Alert!: Executable link rejected due to location or path. lynx: Can't access startfile lynxcgi:/usr/lib/man2html/cgi-bin/man/man2html?7+locale * Fedora related patches and explanations don't seem to be accurate. For example: man2html-dirs.patch +sharedir = $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/usr/share/man2html A path that is not used anywhere in the package. The spec file comment mentions /var/www/cgi-bin for cgi. * As expected, due to SELinux, httpd is confined as much as not to allow the CGI scripts to access the MAN search paths. That's a blocker, but still only a SHOULD in the Review Guidelines: | SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as | described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Currently, the only way to get the scripts to work at all is to change their file context to httpd_unconfined_script_exec_t. Neither the Packaging Guidelines nor the Review Guidelines contain any section on SELinux. I've found just: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux Comments/suggestions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #12 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-05-10 21:34:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) So, here are a couple of findings not limited to the items on the ReviewGuidelines page. This thing is non-trivial to review, but I had expected that. [...] * The debian/NEWS file mentions a man2html-base package instead of man2html-core. Indeed, the Debian packages search lists it as man2html-base. That suggests following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming Generally, Fedora uses -core subpackages for the same reasons/purposes Debian uses -base subpackages. I used -core to be consistent with other Fedora packages, but I can change it if consistency with the Debian package is preferred. * Licensing, minor issues: Files man2html/man2html.c and debian/sources/man2html.cgi.c do not explicitly refer to GPL, just: Permission is granted to distribute, modify and use this program as long as this comment is not removed or changed. This looks like Copyright Only [1] to me, but I'll mail the legal list for guidance. The utils.c file only mentions GPL. Following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses that would result in a license tag: GPL+ File manwhatis.c contains a GPLv2 (or later) header. So, no big issue. License clarification would be NTH: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification * Format string warnings in build output! More often than not these are worth taking a look at, also to avoid surprises on big endian platforms. Okay, I'll see what's up with these. * Run-time testing: $ hman 7 locale /usr/bin/hman: line 90: lynx: command not found So, if lynx isn't a requirement, the browser ought to be configurable. Let's see: $ export MANHTMLPAGER=firefox ; hman 7 locale -- http://localhost/cgi-bin/man/man2html?7+locale The requested URL /cgi-bin/man/man2html was not found on this server. I'll patch hman to fix this one. Now returning to lynx after a yum -y install lynx: $ hman 7 locale Alert!: Executable link rejected due to location or path. lynx: Can't access startfile lynxcgi:/usr/lib/man2html/cgi-bin/man/man2html?7+locale LYNXCGI is disabled by default for security reasons. (See /etc/lynx.cfg at line 964 for the details.) I could ask the lynx maintainer to enable local LYNXCGI and whitelist man2html, but I'm not sure of the security implications of that. IMHO it would be better to default hman to calling `xdg-open` and leave LYNXCGI configuration to interested users who are comfortable with the security issues. * Fedora related patches and explanations don't seem to be accurate. For example: man2html-dirs.patch +sharedir = $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/usr/share/man2html A path that is not used anywhere in the package. The spec file comment mentions /var/www/cgi-bin for cgi. Sorry, both are leftover from previous renditions of the packaging. /usr/share/man2html would have been used by the original man2html CGI scripts to store template files. Debian's version of the CGI scripts (which I switched to because they are more robust and less buggy) don't require it. The latter is because I ended up patching away Debian's use of cgi-bin and instead just use an Apache conf file to make http://localhost/man/ work, because mucking about in /var/www isn't allowed in Fedora. I'll clean up this patch and the comment. * As expected, due to SELinux, httpd is confined as much as not to allow the CGI scripts to access the MAN search paths. That's a blocker, but still only a SHOULD in the Review Guidelines: | SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as | described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Currently, the only way to get the scripts to work at all is to change their file context to httpd_unconfined_script_exec_t. Neither the Packaging Guidelines nor the Review Guidelines contain any section on SELinux. I've found just: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux Thanks, I'll call `semanage fcontext` in the scriptlets for now so it works and file a bug against selinux-policy so it can be fixed properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mschwe...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985
--- Comment #7 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-05-09
06:00:10 EDT ---
Thanks for taking this! I've updated it to address all the above concerns and
fix a bug:
Spec: http://tchol.org/fedora/man2html.spec
SRPM: http://tchol.org/fedora/man2html-1.6-2.g.fc17.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4064432
% rpmlint SPECS/man2html.spec
# these two addressed in our conversation above
SPECS/man2html.spec:118: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
SPECS/man2html.spec:148: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/man2html/
# rpmlint doesn't understand %patches
SPECS/man2html.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: man2html-cgi.patch
snip list of every patch
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 21 warnings.
% rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/man2html-1.6-2.g.fc17.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/man2html-core-1.6-2.g.fc17.x86_64.rpm
# this is documented as a groff macro, not sure why rpmlint doesn't lik it
man2html.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/hman.1.gz 7:
warning: macro `LO' not defined
# cache directory for cgi scripts
man2html.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man2html 0775L
# unlikely to be fixed, upstream is dead
man2html-core.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/man2html-core-1.6/COPYING
# see above
man2html-core.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/man2html.1.gz
6: warning: macro `LO' not defined
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2012-05-09 09:46:12 EDT --- The utf8-converted French man2html man-page appears mis-converted. AFAIS, the original man-page seems latin1-encoded to me, not latin2 encoded. I haven't checked the Italian man-pages, but I'd assume the same applies to them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2012-05-09 13:00:06 EDT --- Agreed. iconv -f latin2 -t utf-8 for both the French and the Italian manual gives bad results = invalid words. Even the Italian translator's name is messed up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #10 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-05-09 14:33:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) The utf8-converted French man2html man-page appears mis-converted. AFAIS, the original man-page seems latin1-encoded to me, not latin2 encoded. I haven't checked the Italian man-pages, but I'd assume the same applies to them. Yeah, that must have been a typo. Fixed. Spec: http://tchol.org/fedora/man2html.spec SRPM: http://tchol.org/fedora/man2html-1.6-3.g.fc17.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4065636 rpmlint output is identical. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 16:20:45
EDT ---
%setup -q -n man-%{version}%{posttag}
tar -zxf %SOURCE1
Hint: %setup can extract multiple tarballs, too:
%setup -q -n man-%{version}%{posttag} -a1
%files
%{_libdir}/../lib/man2html
Really unusual. Nothing forces you to use %_libdir, especially not if the value
of this variable is not passed into the source code's build framework as an
option. So, let's see:
%build
# not autoconf
./configure -d +fhs
$ grep libdir configure
$
That custom configure script understands several options, however, and defaults
to -prefix=/usr and then derives other paths from that prefix. It hardcodes a
confdir=${confprefix}/lib path, for example, and the Debian sources hardcode
/usr/lib, too. = Using %_libdir makes no sense.
/usr/lib/man2html
The spec file would also be more readable when making explicit that a directory
is to be included and not a single file. A trailing slash does the trick:
/usr/lib/man2html/
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
At least the CGI executables are not built with %optflags yet.
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
What's the status with regard to that?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985
--- Comment #4 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-05-07
16:51:59 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
%setup -q -n man-%{version}%{posttag}
tar -zxf %SOURCE1
Hint: %setup can extract multiple tarballs, too:
%setup -q -n man-%{version}%{posttag} -a1
Thanks for the tip.
%files
%{_libdir}/../lib/man2html
Really unusual. Nothing forces you to use %_libdir, especially not if the
value
of this variable is not passed into the source code's build framework as an
option. So, let's see:
%build
# not autoconf
./configure -d +fhs
$ grep libdir configure
$
That custom configure script understands several options, however, and
defaults
to -prefix=/usr and then derives other paths from that prefix. It hardcodes a
confdir=${confprefix}/lib path, for example, and the Debian sources hardcode
/usr/lib, too. = Using %_libdir makes no sense.
I wasn't sure the proper way to express /usr/lib even on x86_64, so I looked
at how systemd did it (that was the first package that came to mind that also
needed it). Back at the time I wrote that spec file, it did it the same way:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=systemd.git;a=blob;f=systemd.spec;h=b5affa0d9b5294f591088f62de7c0f7fd28afe8d;hb=refs/heads/f15#l369
However, it's since switched to using %{_prefix}/lib and I recall a discussion
on devel that mentioned that that's the way to go too. I'll fix it.
/usr/lib/man2html
The spec file would also be more readable when making explicit that a
directory
is to be included and not a single file. A trailing slash does the trick:
/usr/lib/man2html/
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
At least the CGI executables are not built with %optflags yet.
I'll fix these two as well.
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
What's the status with regard to that?
Upstream is very dead; this is essentially the Debian fork of man2html. I have
a comment about what each patch does (most are bugfixes to manpage parsing) and
provided the patch number from Debian where relevant.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #5 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 16:55:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) In order to get sponsored into the packager group, please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Convincing_someone_to_sponsor_you You should do some informal reviews (and note the bug numbers e.g. here, as a reference for a potential sponsor). Sorry, missed the bugmail with this. Here are some I've done in the past: 753577 815018 768894 755890 756435 728837 769029 I'll try and do some more this week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 17:21:22 EDT --- I recall a discussion on devel The result of it is covered by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros The full background about the small benefit of path macros in some cases is a bit longer than what can be found on that page. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-02 15:55:48 EST --- In order to get sponsored into the packager group, please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Convincing_someone_to_sponsor_you You should do some informal reviews (and note the bug numbers e.g. here, as a reference for a potential sponsor). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2011-12-20 09:09:48 EST --- Sorry, the above Spec URL is incorrect. It should be: http://tchol.org/fedora/man2html.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
